Bonded Concrete Overlays on Asphalt Pavements: Resources for Evaluation (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

34 APPENDIX C: PROJECT PORTFOLIOS

35 I-70 COLORADO Description/Project Location I-70 is a major interstate that runs east-west from Utah to Maryland. The segment on I-70 of interest is in Colorado near Grand Junction, from mile post 13.2 to 14.2. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Grand Junction, CO BCOA Construction Year 2011 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled No Tie Bars Yes Sawcut Width: 3/16 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 8-inch Base: 4-inch ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design As-Built Plans show 3.5 inches to 5 inches of hot bituminous pavement was placed over 4 inches of plant mix bituminous base.

36 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – CDOT 2004 Thin Whitetopping Design Procedure Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Primary Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 10,600,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3,400,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 650 AC Thickness (inch) 8 AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 167,000 AC Poisson's Ratio 0.35 AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) 50 Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 200 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) 3 Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) 7.38 ESAL Conversion Factor 0.9954 Neutral Axis 4.08 le 32 L/le 2.25 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) ½ to 2 Table 3. Traffic Details (2011) Detail Response AADT Construction Year (total for both directions) 8,200 Cars as Percentage of AADT (%) 77.5 Single Unit Trucks as Percentage of AADT (%) 1.6 Combination Trucks as Percentage of AADT (%) 20.9 Annual Growth Rate of Traffic (%) 1.5 Speed Limit Under Normal Operating Conditions (mph) 75 No. of Lanes in Each Direction During Normal Conditions 2 Free Flow Capacity (vphpl) 1,615 Rural or Urban Hourly Traffic Distribution Rural Queue Dissipation Capacity (vphpl) 1,260 Maximum AADT (total for both directions) 120,000 Maximum Queue Length (mi) 4.4 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nom. Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 2012122 0.75 564 25 0.43 139.5 6.0 2012102 0.75 520 25 0.44 141.9 5.9 2012101 0.75 564 25 0.43 139.7 5.8 2012139 0.75 520 25 0.44 140.0 6.8 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 2012122, 2012102, 2012101 and 2012139 Type I/II - Holcim Class F Fly Ash – Boral (Craig) Coarse Agg Size 4, Coarse Agg Size 67, Fine Aggregate – United Companies 15 Rd. Loma Pit AEA – Euclid Eucon AEA 92 1 AEA=Air-Entraining Admixture.

37 Table 4. Mix Design Details (continued) Mix Proportions 2012122 2012102 2012101 2012139 Cement (lb) 423 390 423 390 Fly Ash (lb) 141 130 141 130 Coarse Aggregate Size 4 (lb) 496 852 827 510 Coarse Aggregate Size 67 (lb) 1,156 852 827 1189 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1353 1,394 1,353 1,394 Admixture AEA (oz) 4.2 2.9 1.5 2.8 Admixture WR (oz) 22.4 41.6 22.4 31.2 Water (lb) 242 224 243 229 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 5. Performance Summary―Prior to BCOA Type Severity Extent Alligator (Fatigue) Cracking Good 5% Localized Bleeding Good 5% Localized Block Cracking Good/Fair 10% Corrugation Good 0% Depression Fair 15% Joint Reflection Cracking (from underlying pavement) Poor 50% consistent over the project Lane/Shoulder Joint Separation Fair 30% Longitudinal Cracking Poor 60% Transverse Cracking Poor 80% @ 30 ft intervals Patch Deterioration Fair 20% Polished Aggregate Good 10% Potholes Fair 25% Raveling/Weathering Good 10% Rutting Good 5% Slippage Cracking Good 0% Base Course Deterioration from Runoff Fair/Poor 20% Table 6. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Eastbound Year Performance Indicator IRI in/mi) Wear (inch) Faulting (inch) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2013 83 0.1 0 0 0 2014 94 0.0 0 7 24 2015 87 0.0 0 5 49 2016 88 0.0 0 11 134 2017 88 0.1 0 2 15 Table 7. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Westbound Year Performance Indicator IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Faulting (inch) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2013 85 0.1 0 15 98 2014 96 0.0 0 12 21 2015 95 0.1 0 1 10 2016 93 0.0 0 4 40 2017 97 0.1 0 0 30

38 MAINTENANCE HISTORY None. CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 8. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total EB Average 92 28 0 0 0 0 Stdev 16 6 0 0 0.2 0.2 WB Average 102 24 0 0 0 0 Stdev 12 4 0 0 0.1 0.1 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—eastbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

39 Figure 3. Automated condition survey—westbound. Manual Condition Survey (2018) Table 9. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 0 0 8 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 8 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 181 182 179 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 4 494 546 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 0 2 1.1 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 1 0 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 120 1,976 3,777 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 3 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 23 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 0 2 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 1 Total Slabs Surveyed 180 180 180 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

40 Figure 4. Condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment. Figure 5. Condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment.

41 Figure 6. Condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2018) Table 10. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 85 4,528 10.9 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 88 1,477 10.5 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 86 1,649 10.5 5,000,000 0.15 GPR (2018) Table 11. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.5 14.2 6.6 14.4 6.5 14.3 Std. Deviation 0.2 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.2 1.3 Fair Average 6.2 12.1 6.7 12.1 6.4 12.1 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.4 1.0 Poor Average 6.4 11.9 6.5 12.1 6.4 12.0 Std. Deviation 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.1 0.3 1.1 All Average 6.3 12.7 6.6 12.9 6.5 12.8 Std. Deviation 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.7 0.3 1.6

42 Figure 7 GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. Faultmeter (2018) Not conducted due to traffic control time constraints. Coring and DCP (2018) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 2.10 2.07 2.04 2.01 1.58 1.55 1.52 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.80 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Poor Good Fair

43 Core C-1 (poor) Core C-3 (poor) Core C-7 (good) Figure 8 Core samples. Table 12. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 6.8 6.5 7.0 6.9 6.8 0.2 5.9 6.2 6.1 5.9 6.0 0.1 Asphalt 15.9 15.2 15.2 14.2 15.1 0.7 12.6 12.5 12.2 11.2 12.1 0.6 Table 13. DCP Results Layer Description Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 1 2 Subgrade CBR 23.0 33.0 28.0 5.0 9.6 7.0 8.3 1.3 Subgrade Modulus (psi) 19,006 23,946 21,476 2,470 10,865 8,877 9,871 994

44 LABORATORY TESTING Table 14. Split Tensile Strength and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C6 435 6,005 C5 377 4,873 Table 15. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔 𝑭) C2 5.669 Figure 9. Indirect tensile strength results.

45 Figure 10. Hamburg wheel test results. Table 16. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C1 2.409 2.369 0.26 0.26 2.329 0.33 C2 2.400 2.370 0.19 0.19 2.341 0.23 C5 2.334 2.344 0.24 0.24 2.355 0.25 C7 2.364 2.328 0.42 0.42 2.291 0.62 Table 17. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C4 4,271 156 Bond and cohesive C5 3,619 133 Bond C6 4,833 177 Bond C8 2,833 103 Bond 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass #

46 Figure 11. Composite concrete-asphalt shear test results.

47 Table 18. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Subgrade Poor 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 100 100 12.5 0.50 98 99 9.5 0.375 98 98 No.4 0.187 94 94 No.8 0.094 85 88 No. 10 0.079 82 86 No.16 0.047 67 75 No.30 0.023 46 54 No. 40 0.017 39 44 No.50 0.012 31 34 No.100 0.006 10 11 No.200 0.003 2 3 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% 34% PL 30% 22% PI 13% 12% AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-2-6

48 SH-83A COLORADO Description/Project Location State Highway 83 connects Colorado Springs to Denver with major intersections at Black Forest, Franktown, Parker and Aurora. The precise location of this project was from Orchard Road (MP 66.6) to Rice Place (MP 68.6). Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Near Foxfield, Arapahoe County, CO BCOA Construction Year 2000 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 3/16 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 5-inch Asphalt: 6-inch Base: N/A

49 ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Existing asphalt concrete is 6 to 7 inches thick. BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – CDOT 2004 Thin Whitetopping Design Procedure Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Primary Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 7,119,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3,400,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 650 AC Thickness (inch) 6 AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 340,000 AC Poisson's Ratio 0.35 AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) N/A Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 3,562 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) N/A Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) N/A ESAL Conversion Factor N/A Neutral Axis N/A le N/A L/le N/A Overlay Thickness (inch) 5 Milling Thickness (inch) Mill 0.5 below ruts Structural Design Method – ILLI-SLAB Design Parameters Input Value Slab Thickness (inch) 5 Panel Size (ft) 6x6 20-Year 18k ESAL 7,119,000 Concrete Modulus of Rupture (lb/in2) 650 Concrete Modulus of Elasticity (lb/in2) 3,400,000 Load Transfer (%) 50 Resilient Modulus of Subgrade (lb/in2) 3562 Resilient Modulus of AC Pavement (lb/in2) 340,000 Thickness of AC Pavement (inch) 6 Loss of Support 0 Maximum Stress (lb/in2) Loaded @ Edge 212.85 Loaded @ Corner 224.84 Stress Ratio Loaded @ Edge 0.3275 Loaded @ Corner 0.3459 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response ADT (2000) 54,340 DHV 5,434 DHV Trucks % 5 Number of lanes 4

50 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Proportions 2012122 Cement Type Type I Cementitious Material (lb) 563 w/cm 0.36 Aggregate Type Granite Construction • Longitudinal joints shall coincide with lane markings if possible and have a maximum spacing of 1.25 ft (15 ft permitted with monolithic curb and gutter). • Place transverse joints perpendicular to the centerline of pavement and extend through the curb or curb and gutter. • Place ½ in minimum expansion joint filler in top 6 inches of curb at intersection return radius points. • The Contractor shall, unless otherwise shown on the plans, select and use either a boxout or bond breaker at inlets, manholes and similar size structures. Smaller structures such as valve and monument boxes shall not require a boxout or bond breaker. • Transverse joints shall be located at the corner of rectangular boxouts, no transverse joint shall pass within 4 feet of a boxout. • Where a longitudinal joint would pass less than 1 ft from a cast-in pavement manhole or similar size structure, a typical 2 inch radial joint, as shown in the details, shall be used. • The final finish, tining, and stationing requirement of subsection 412.12 shall not apply. Tined grooves are not required. An approximate 1 inch thick plastic turf drag shall be used to provide final textured finish. • The L or E joint shall be used instead of D on two and three lane pavements. • T Joint is required when pour has been interrupted more than 30 minutes and at end of a day’s pour. Locate at C joint or 2 ft from C. • Tie bars shall be epoxy coated, deformed reinforcing bars per AASHTO M 284 No. 4 when t<8 in, No. 5 when T=8 in to 10 in, No. 6 when T> 10 inch. • Backer rod of closed cell polyethylene strand as approved. • Joint filler shall be a silicone sealant that is on the division’s approved silicone sealant list. It shall be applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 5. Performance Summary―Prior to BCOA Year Direction IRI (in/mi) Rutting (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 1998 NB 135 0.8 1,719 446 417 1998 SB 135 0.8 1,719 446 417 1999 NB 132 0.6 16,519 269 9,747 1999 SB 132 0.6 16,519 269 9,747

51 Table 6. Performance Summary―After BCOA—Northbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2000 104 0.1 0 4 0 2001 110 0.1 0 0 34 2002 109 0.1 0 1 7 2003 117 0.1 0 16 216 2004 124 0.3 0 3 172 2005 117 0.2 0 5 199 2006 129 0.2 0 3 123 2007 117 0.1 0 7 160 2008 119 0.2 0 2 206 2009 130 0.1 0 0 124 2010 126 0.1 0 1 265 2011 145 0.2 0 6 101 2012 126 0.2 0 14 135 2013 133 0.2 0 5 231 2014 141 0 0 18 222 2015 144 0 0 23 260 2016 146 0 0 25 361 2017 150 0.2 0.1 27 312 Table 7. Performance Summary―After BCOA—Southbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2000 135 0 0 2 88 2001 125 0 0 0 0 2002 119 0 0 0 0 2003 120 0 0 0 0 2004 123 0.2 0 3 25 2005 125 0.1 0 4 124 2006 121 0.1 0 5 42 2007 118 0.1 0 0 39 2008 126 0.1 0 1 89 2009 139 0.1 0 1 65 2010 123 0.1 0 0 11 2011 125 0.1 0 0 16 2012 126 0.2 0 1 150 2013 132 0.1 0 1 237 2014 139 0 0 8 111 2015 131 0 0 0 0 2016 139 0 0 4 48 2017 142 0.2 0.1 4 216 MAINTENANCE HISTORY Small quantity of concrete patching.

52 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 8 Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 154 63 0.6 2.2 0.2 3.0 Stdev 37 18 0.8 2.4 0.4 3.2 SB Average 146 62 0.8 2.4 0.1 3.2 Stdev 23 10 1.0 3.7 0.2 4.1 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

53 Manual Condition Survey (2018)—Northbound (good) and Southbound (fair and poor) Table 9. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Section Fair Section Poor Section Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 4 0 12 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 8 3 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 180 181 181 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 1,011 386 725 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 23 2 1 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 1 2 4 Map Cracking (ft2) 4,232 4,194 4,240 Scaling (ft2) 0 12 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 2,116 2,102 2,144 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 94 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 3 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 1 4 Total Slabs Surveyed 178 180 178 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

54 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2018) Table 10. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 90 1,122 9.3 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 86 1,509 8.3 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 93 1,174 10.0 5,000,000 0.15

55 GPR (2018) Table 11. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.2 6.3 5.8 7.0 6.2 6.4 Std. Deviation 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 Fair Average 6.0 5.2 6.1 5.4 6.1 5.3 Std. Deviation 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.7 Poor Average 5.9 7.1 6.4 7.3 6.1 7.2 Std. Deviation 0.4 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.4 All Average 6.0 6.2 6.1 6.6 6.1 6.4 Std. Deviation 0.4 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.3 Figure 7 GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. Faultmeter (2018) Table 12. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 Maximum (inch) 0.08 0.04 0.08 Average (inch) 0.03 0.01 0.03 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.03 0.02 0.04 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.18 1.15 1.12 1.01 1.04 1.07 1.10 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Good (NB) Poor (SB) Fair (NB)

56 Coring and DCP (2018) Core C-1 (good) Core C-2 (good) Core C-6 (poor) Figure 8 Core samples. Table 13. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 5.7 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.5 0.2 10.4 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.4 0.2 Asphalt 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.5 9.2 0.2 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 0.1 Table 14. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 3 5 7 Aggregate Base N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Subgrade 9,591 6,004 7,798 1,794 17,324 14,580 15,952 1,372

57 LABORATORY TESTING Table 15. Split Tensile and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C1 406 5,540 C2 479 6,773 C4 508 7,513 C5 319 3,844 C6 421 5,729 C8 305 3,553 Table 16. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (𝒙 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C4 5.562 C6 5.656 Figure 9. Indirect tensile strength results. Figure 10. Hamburg wheel test results. C1 C3 C4 C5 C6 C8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass #

58 Table 17. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C1 2.300 2.319 0.31 0.31 2.338 0.35 C3 2.289 2.317 0.22 0.24 2.275 0.21 2.333 0.24 2.369 0.28 C4 2.330 2.317 0.36 0.34 2.303 0.32 C5 2.256 2.298 0.51 0.44 2.340 0.36 C6 2.250 N/A 0.47 N/A C8 2.285 2.314 0.23 0.24 2.332 0.19 2.324 0.30 Table 18. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Segment Good Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 100 19 0.75 100 100 100 12.5 0.50 100 99 100 9.5 0.375 100 99 100 No.4 0.187 99 97 99 No.8 0.094 96 88 95 No. 10 0.079 82 86 94 No.16 0.047 78 80 89 No.30 0.023 67 60 75 No. 40 0.017 58 48 61 No.50 0.012 44 27 28 No.100 0.006 15 9 8 No.200 0.003 5 3 2 Pan 0 0 0 0 LL NP 29% PL NP 22% PI NP 7% AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-4 A-1-b A-2-4

59 SH-83B COLORADO Description/Project Location State Highway 83 connects Colorado Springs to Denver with major intersections at Black Forest, Franktown, Parker and Aurora. The precise location of this project was from Lewiston Way (MP 64.9) to Orchard Road (MP 66.6). Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project details Detail Response Project Location Near Foxfield, Arapahoe County, CO BCOA Construction Year 2005 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 3/16 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 7-inch Aggregate base: Unknown

60 ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Table 2. Pavement Thickness from Cores. Location Milepost Asphalt Thickness (inch) SB, Lane 1 65.70 5.0 SB, Lane 1 66.75 5.5 SB, Lane 3 66.10 7.0 NB, Lane 3 66.00 7.5 NB, Lane 1 66.80 7.5 SB, Lane 3 65.10 8.0 NB, Lane 1 64.90 8.0 SB, Lane 3 66.56 8.5 SB, Lane 2 66.31 8.5 NB, Lane 3 64.90 8.5 SB, Lane 2 65.40 9.0 NB, Lane 1 65.70 9.0 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – CDOT 2004 Thin Whitetopping Design Procedure Table 3. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Secondary Design life (years) 10 18 k ESAL 2,066,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3,400,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 650 AC Thickness (inch) 7 AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 532,728 AC Poisson's Ratio 0.35 AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) 69.2 Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 220 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) 3 Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) 7.05 ESAL Conversion Factor 1.0172 Neutral Axis 4.47 le 34.11 L/le 2.11 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) 0.75 Table 4. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day ADT (2001) 52,024 DHV 5,202 Trucks % 4.73 Number of Lanes 6

61 Paving Materials 1. For preliminary plan quantities of pavement materials, the following rates of application were used: Hot bituminous pavement (GR s)(100)(PG 64-22) 110 lb/sy/inch Hot bituminous pavement (patching) 110 lb/sy//inch Emulsified asphalt (SS) tack coat 0.1 Gal/sy (diluted) Aggregate Base Course (Class 6) 133 lb/cf (1.8 tons/cy) Diluted emulsified asphalt for tack coat shall consist of 1 part emulsified asphalt and 1 part water. Rate of application shall be determined by the Engineer at the time of application All concrete for portland cement concrete pavement shall be Class P. All fast track concrete pavement shall be class E. 2. The type of compaction for subgrade on this project shall be AASHTO T-99. Water for compaction will not be paid for separately but shall be included in the cost of the work. 3. The minimum R value for embankment material shall be 25. 4. Depth of moisture and density control, for this project shall be 6 inches for reconstructed or new pavement areas, concrete replacement areas, and new sidewalk areas and full depth of all embankments and bases of cuts and fills. Construction 1. Before concrete paving, the contractor shall power broom the area to be paved immediately ahead of the paver. High pressure air shall be used to clean the surface for paving. No dirt, sand oil, or other contaminants will be permitted to remain on the surface to be paved. Inlets shall be protected prior to cleaning of pavement. Water shall not be used to clean prior to paving. This work shall be included in the cost of the concrete pavements (6 inch and 10.5 inch). 2. It is estimated that 100 tons of HBP (patching) will be required at locations as directed by the engineer. 3. Use pavement smoothness category II, inches/mile, for concrete roadway smoothness incentive/disincentive payment calculations. 4. In areas where concrete is full depth, curb and gutter must also be full depth. Full depth curb and gutter shall not be paid for separately but shall be included in the cost of the associated item. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 5. Performance Summary―Prior to BCOA―Northbound Year IRI (in/mi) Rutting (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse (count) Longitudinal (ft) 2002 152 0.3 6,347 279 2,910 2003 153 0.3 6,997 258 5,069 2004 150 0.5 4,512 209 2,977 Table 6. Performance Summary―Prior to BCOA―Southbound Year IRI (in/mi) Rutting (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse (count) Longitudinal (ft) 2002 175 0.3 9,323 400 3,737 2003 128 0.2 4,502 204 2,818 2004 136 0.5 8,307 295 4,342

62 Table 7. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Northbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse (count) Longitudinal (ft) 2005 79 0.1 0 0 0 2006 77 0.1 0 8 9 2007 74 0.1 0 9 15 2008 79 0.1 0 18 16 2009 87 0 0 4 5 2010 92 0.1 0 9 51 2011 119 0.2 0 3 147 2012 118 0.1 0 11 125 2013 122 0.1 0 0 47 2014 119 0 0 29 205 2015 116 0 0 38 75 2016 122 0 0 64 101 2017 132 0.1 0.1 2 29 Note: faulting results were not provided. Table 8. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Southbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse (count) Longitudinal (ft) 2005 93 0.1 0 0 0 2006 96 0.1 0 9 0 2007 99 0.1 0 13 33 2008 104 0.1 0 55 126 2009 107 0.1 0 5 501 2010 131 0.1 0 17 241 2011 141 0.1 0 10 53 2012 125 0.1 0 23 20 2013 128 0.1 0 22 66 2014 130 0 0 57 184 2015 137 0 0 0 0 2016 136 0 0 40 74 2017 145 0.1 0.1 34 472 Note: faulting results were not provided. MAINTENANCE HISTORY Small quantity of concrete patching.

63 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 9. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 146 59 0.2 0.7 0 0.9 Stdev 46 22 0.3 0.8 0 0.9 SB Average 135 57 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.7 Stdev 41 18 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.8 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

64 Manual Condition Survey (2018) Table 10. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 1 1 1 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 6 0 4 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 2 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 173 168 175 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 818 538 1035 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 6 1 16 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 8 5 23 Map Cracking (ft2) 6,312 6,336 6,384 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 72 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 0 1 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 0 Total Slabs Surveyed 172 166 174 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation. Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

65 Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 7. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2018) Table 11. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) k-value (lb/in3) Good 83 1,003 7.1 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 79 1,634 6.2 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 84 667 7.2 5,000,000 0.15

66 GPR (2018) Table 12. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.3 8.7 6.6 9.0 6.5 8.8 Std. Deviation 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.8 1.0 Fair Average 7.8 8.4 7.8 7.7 7.8 8.1 Std. Deviation 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.2 Poor Average 8.5 8.4 8.5 7.6 8.5 8.0 Std. Deviation 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 All Average 7.5 8.5 7.7 8.1 7.6 8.3 Std. Deviation 1.3 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 Figure 8. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. Faultmeter (2018) Table 13. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.08 0.08 0.16 Average (inch) 0.02 0.04 0.06 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.03 0.03 0.04 0 3 6 9 12 15 0.80 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.50 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Good Poor Fair

67 Coring and DCP (2018) Core C-3 (good) Core C-7 (poor) Figure 9. Core samples. Table 14. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.9 5.9 0.1 6.1 (a) 5.9 5.9 6.0 0.1 Asphalt 6.7 6.7 7.3 6.9 6.9 0.3 6.7 (a) 7.1 6.9 6.9 0.2 Table 15. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 1 2 Aggregate Base N/A N/A N/A N/A 35,556 33,438 34,497 1,059 Subgrade 23,946 21,753 22,850 1,097 11,295 10,202 10,749 547 LABORATORY TESTING Table 16. Split-Tensile and Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2)(a) C1 406 N/A 5,540 C2 479 N/A 6,773 C5 319 N/A 3,844 C6 421 N/A 5,729 C8 N/A 9,572 7,368 (a) Predicted compressive strength for cores tested for split tensile strength.

68 Table 17. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (𝒙 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C4 5.545 C5 5.160 Figure 10. Indirect tensile strength results. Figure 11. Hamburg Wheel Testing Results (C5) Table 18. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C5 2.314 2.316 0.39 0.39 2.319 0.30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 200 400 600 800 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass #

69 Table 19. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Segment Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 100 19.0 0.75 100 100 100 12.5 0.50 100 100 100 9.5 0.375 100 100 100 No.4 0.187 100 99 100 No.8 0.094 98 92 98 No. 10 0.079 97 91 97 No.16 0.047 94 85 94 No.30 0.023 79 56 79 No. 40 0.017 63 41 63 No.50 0.012 35 22 35 No.100 0.006 9 6 9 No.200 0.003 3 2 3 Pan 0 0 0 0 LL NP NP PL NP NP PI NP NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-4 A-3 A-1-b

70 SH-121A COLORADO Description/Project Location Wadsworth Boulevard (SH-121) is a major arterial serving the west side of the Denver Metropolitan Area. This project lies primarily within the boundaries of the city of Westminster. The limits of this project where between C470 Park and Hill Avenue. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Denver, CO BCOA Construction Year 2000 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled No Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 3/16-inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: Yes Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 5.5-inch Base: N/A

71 ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Table 2. Boring Results. Boring No. Reference Intersection Asphalt Thickness (inch) S-1 Brook Dr. 12 S-2 Payne Ave. 5 S-3 Payne Ave. 7 S-4 Ken Caryl Ave. 5 S-5 Coal Mine Ave. 6 S-6 Peakview Dr. 9 S-7 C-470 12 S-8 Payne Ave. 6 S-9 Chatfield Ave. 5 S-10 David Dr. 6 S-11 Ken Caryl Ave. 7 S-12 Columbine Dr. 9 S-13 Coal Mine Ave. 6 S-14 Parkhill Ave. 7 S-15 Coal Mine Ave. 6 S-16 Columbine Dr. 6 S-17 Ken Caryl Ave. 6 S-18 David Dr. 7 S-19 Chatfield Ave. 7 Note: Average thickness of existing asphalt concrete layer was 7 inches. BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – CDOT 2004 Thin Whitetopping Design Procedure Table 3. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Secondary Design life (years) 10 18 k ESAL 1,272,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3,400,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 650 AC Thickness (inch) 5.5 AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 266,000 AC Poisson's Ratio 0.35 AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) 50 Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 486 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) 3 Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) 6.89 ESAL Conversion Factor 1.0242 Neutral Axis 3.81 le 23.29 L/le 3.01 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) 0.75

72 Table 4. Traffic Details Detail Response Present day ADT (1996) 22,000 % Design Hour Vehicles 10 % Single Unit Trucks 3.95 Combined Trucks 0.86 Number of Lanes 4 Paving Materials Table 5. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nom. Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) N/A N/A 698 16 0.38 N/A N/A Mix Designation Cement Source (Type) SCM Source (Class) Aggregate Source Admixtures1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mix Proportions Mix Cement (lb) 585 Fly Ash (lb) 113 Coarse Aggregate (lb) 1,614 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1,320 Admixture AEA (oz) 2.5 Water (lb) 264 1. All concrete for portland cement concrete pavement shall be class P. Construction 1. Before concrete paving, the contractor shall power broom the area to be paved immediately ahead of the paver. High pressure air or water shall be used to clean the surface for paving. No dirt, sand, oil, or other contaminants will be permitted to remain on the surface to be paved. This work shall be included in the cost of the concrete pavement (6 in). 2. The minimum R-value for embankment shall be 25. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 6. Performance Summary―Prior to BCOA―Northbound Year IRI (in/mi) Rutting (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 1999 134 0.3 19,143 504 7,867 2000 158 0.3 92,974 671 15,112 2001 168 0.3 54,887 591 7,210 Table 7. Performance Summary―Prior to BCOA―Southbound Year IRI (in/mi) Rutting (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 1999 125 0.2 15,533 597 3,803 2000 156 0.2 35,010 704 6,704 2001 147 0.3 68,236 935 9,566

73 Table 8. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Northbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2002 68 0 0 5 0 2003 69 0 0 4 5 2004 70 0.2 0 5 0 2005 69 0.1 0 7 11 2006 71 0.1 0 10 101 2007 96 0.1 0 25 112 2008 77 0.1 0 4 0 2009 86 0 0 5 59 2010 82 0 0 4 55 2011 87 0.2 0 4 48 2012 79 0.1 0 34 198 2013 78 0.1 0 5 116 2014 90 0 0 16 211 2015 82 0 0 3 120 2016 92 0 0 6 137 2017 84 0.1 0.05 9 141 Table 9. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Southbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2002 83 0 0 0 11 2003 76 0 0 0 0 2004 82 0.3 0 2 0 2005 78 0.1 0 0 3 2006 77 0.1 0 0 24 2007 96 0.1 0 0 43 2008 83 0.1 0 0 348 2009 91 0 0 0 113 2010 91 0 0 22 490 2011 93 0.1 0 0 240 2012 103 0.1 0 5 378 2013 114 0.1 0 0 353 2014 112 0 0 4 534 2015 93 0 0 5 307 MAINTENANCE HISTORY None.

74 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 10. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 91 34 0 0.4 0.2 0.6 Stdev 25 8 0 1.4 0.6 1.6 SB Average 117 42 0 2.0 0 2.1 Stdev 73 18 0.1 4.7 0 4.7 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Transverse Corner Longitudinal

75 Manual Condition Survey (2018) Table 11. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 7 16 55 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 166 175 178 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 27 50 78 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 1 0 0 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 ft) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 1 Total Slabs Surveyed 174 176 178 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

76 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD Table 12. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 87 968 8.3 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 88 886 8.4 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 89 992 7.7 5,000,000 0.15

77 GPR (2018) Table 13. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.4 — 6.2 — 6.3 — Std. Deviation 0.8 — 0.6 — 0.7 — Fair Average 6.3 — 6.3 — 6.3 — Std. Deviation 0.4 — 0.4 — 0.4 — Poor Average 6.3 — 6.2 — 6.3 — Std. Deviation 0.4 — 0.4 — 0.4 — All Average 6.3 — 6.2 — 6.3 — Std. Deviation 0.6 — 0.5 — 0.5 — Note: — indicates GPR was unable to detect the asphalt layer. Figure 6. GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.20 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Concrete Core Asphalt Core Good Fair Poor

78 MIRA (2018) Figure 7. MIRA results. Table 14. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 6.1 6.1 5.9 Stdev (inch) 0.4 0.4 0.4 Figure 8. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2018) Table 15. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.04 0.04 0.08 Average (inch) 0.01 0.01 0.04 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.02 0.02 0.02 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

79 Coring and DCP (2018) Figure 9. Example cores—poor segment. Table 16. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.1 6.0 0.1 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.7 0.1 Asphalt 7.3 7.3 7.1 6.9 7.1 0.2 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.8 0.1 Table 17. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 1 2 Aggregate Base Refusal Refusal N/A N/A 51,717 53,329 52,523 806 Subgrade Refusal Refusal 17,314 3,866 8,466 8,631 8,549 83 LABORATORY TESTING Table 18. Split Tensile and Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2)(a) C1 406 N/A 5,294 C2 N/A 6,541 5,033 C5 348 N/A 4,322 C6 N/A 7,049 5,424 C8 450 N/A 6,208 (a) Predicted compressive strength for cores tested for split tensile strength.

80 Table 19. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (𝒙 𝟏𝟎 𝟔 𝑭) C2 4.614 C8 5.133 Table 20. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Agg Base Subgrade 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 97 94 19.0 0.75 92 91 12.5 0.50 84 84 9.5 0.375 83 78 `No. 4 0.187 71 69 No .8 0.094 64 62 No. 10 0.079 62 61 No. 16 0.047 56 54 No. 30 0.023 41 39 No. 40 0.017 37 30 No. 50 0.012 29 21 No. 100 0.006 23 6 No. 200 0.003 20 1 Pan 0 0 0 LL NP NP PL NP NP PI NP NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-1-b A-1-a

81 SH-121B COLORADO Description/Project Location Wadsworth Boulevard (SH-121) is a major arterial serving the west side of the Denver Metropolitan Area. This project lies primarily within the boundaries of the city of Westminster. The facility for most of its length to the south of 88th Avenue is a 6-lane facility. At about 92nd Avenue it drops to a primarily 4- lane divided expressway, and that section continues up to the intersection with US-36, US-287, and SH- 128. The major intersection within the project is 100th Avenue, a highly developed commercial area with connections to residential development. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Denver, CO BCOA Construction Year 2012 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled No Longitudinal Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 3/16 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 6-inch Base: 4-inch ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Included 3-½ inches of asphalt over 4 inches of aggregate base. An additional 1-½ inch asphalt (footnote as future construction) (No project plans were located in Region 6 archives).

82 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – CDOT 2004 Thin Whitetopping Design Procedure Overlay Design Inputs and Assumptions: • Designed as a thin whitetopping (2009 CDOT Pavement Design Manual: Chapter 6) • Based on total asphalt section of 6 3/4 inch (minimum thickness from all cores) • 20-year design life • 20-year ESAL 3,026,032 construction beginning in 2010 • MR= 5,592 lb/in2 (R-value = 23); mean effective k-value of 144 lb/in3 • Elastic modulus of Asphalt Concrete layer taken as 286,363 lb/in2 from a 2000 FWD test. • By common practice by Colorado and other states, a surface milling was recommended prior to whitetopping. • Following CDOT specifications for whitetopping procedures, it was determined that a 6 inch whitetopping over a minimum of 6 inch of asphalt concrete. • The 6 inch design incorporates a 6 ft by 6 ft jointing pattern for all through lanes and any full-sized turn lanes. • To achieve a final 6 inch asphalt thickness, a milling of max ¾ inch was recommended. Net thickness gain of 5 ¼ inch Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Secondary Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 3,026,032 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3,400,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 650 AC Thickness (inch) 6 AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 286,363 AC Poisson's Ratio 0.35 AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) 50 Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 144 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) 3 Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) 7.38 ESAL Conversion Factor 1.0751 Neutral Axis 4.12 le 34.50 L/le 2.09 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) 0.75 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT (2007) 40,100 Single Trucks % 3.3 Combination Trucks % 0.3 20 Year Factor 1.5 Number of Lanes 6 from 88th to 92nd, 4 from 92nd to 104th

83 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nom. Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 2010128 0.75 660 21 0.36 139.8 6.7 2009026 0.75 700 20 0.35 143.1 6.2 2009027 0.75 700 20 0.38 141.0 6.8 Mix Designation Cement Source (Type) SCM Source (Class) Aggregate Source Admixtures 2010128 Type I/II – GCC (Pueblo) Class F Fly Ash (Boral (Denver Terminal) Coarse Agg Size 67 and Size 9 , Fine Agg - Bromley Lake Pit Chryso Air 260 Chryso Enviro 380 2009026 Type I/II – GCC (Pueblo) Class F Fly Ash (Boral (Denver Terminal) Coarse Agg Size 67 and Fine Agg - Bromley Lake Pit Coarse Agg Size 4 – Frei & Sons Pit No. 6 Chryso Air 260 Chryso Enviro 380 2009027 Type I/II – GCC (Pueblo) Class F Fly Ash (Boral (Denver Terminal) Coarse Agg Size 67 and Fine Agg - Bromley Lake Pit Coarse Agg Size 4 – Frei & Sons Pit No. 6 Chryso Air 260 Chryso Enviro 380 Mix Proportions 2010128 2009026 2009027 Cement (lb) 521 560 560 Fly Ash (lb) 139 140 140 Coarse Agg 1 Size 4 (lb) 1625 870 870 Coarse Agg 1 Size 67 (lb) 813 905 905 Fine Aggregate (lb) 512 1150 1100 Admixture AEA (oz) 3.5 8.0 2.5 Admixture WR (oz) 34.0 35.0 35.0 Water (lb) 240 245 265 Construction 1. Saw cutting and containment of saw residue shall not be measured and paid for separately but shall be included in the cost of the work. 2. Locations with ruts shall be milled to a depth of ½ inch below the bottom of the ruts as directed by the engineer. 3. The profile/cross slope of the milled surface shall follow that of the top surface of the existing pavement. Locations where the milled surface profile/cross slope deviates from that of the top lift of existing pavement shall be corrected at the contractor’s expense as directed by the engineer. 4. The contractor is responsible for verifying grades and existing flows as shown. The contractor is also responsible for projecting reference monuments during construction. Valve box and manhole adjustments are by the contractor unless otherwise noted. 5. To minimize concrete pavement placement, the contractor shall prepare a profile grade line plan and a cross slope plan prior to milling operations and submit to the project engineer for approval. Profile grade plan and cross slope plan work shall be included in the construction surveying work. Cross

84 slope correction milling, and string line work shall not be paid for separately but shall be included in the cost of roto-milling. 6. ABC (class 6) (Special) shall be placed to a depth of 6 inch or to the depth of the existing pavement (if the existing pavement thickness is less than 6 inch) as directed. Compaction of the subgrade/ ABD (Class 6) (Special) shall follow section 203 and 304 of the 2005 CDOT Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction. All work required to place the ABC (Class 6) (Special) shall not be paid for separately but shall be included in the cost of the work. All work shall be per the engineer. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 5. Performance Summary―Prior to BCOA Year Direction IRI (in/mi) Rutting (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2010 NB 61 0 718 97 3,866 2010 SB 73 0.1 2,367 123 8,500 2011 NB 63 0.2 1,985 222 9,685 2011 SB 102 0.1 6,507 185 7,671 Table 6. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Northbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2012 91 0.1 0 2 7 2013 90 0.2 0 3 0 2014 112 N/A 0 1 13 2015 94 N/A 0 1 17 2016 86 N/A 0 3 88 2017 87 0.2 0.06 1 54 Table 7. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Northbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Fatigue (ft2) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 2012 87 0.1 0 1 0 2013 85 0.1 0 0 0 2014 105 N/A 0 0 6 2015 83 N/A 0 2 7 2016 85 N/A 0 2 48 2017 85 0.2 0.04 1 25 MAINTENANCE HISTORY None.

85 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 8. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 76 29 0.1 0.9 0 1.0 Stdev 17 5 0.3 1.4 0.1 1.4 SB Average 83 36 0 0.3 0 0.3 Stdev 21 10 0 0.5 0 0.5 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

86 Manual Condition Survey (2018) Table 9. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 0 0 16 Transverse Cracking (ft) 7 0 3 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 178 173 180 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 676 858 1,009 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 1 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 2 2 1 Map Cracking (ft2) 4,224 0 839 Scaling (ft2) 0 2,121 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 2,112 4,224 6,049 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 3 Total Slabs Surveyed 176 178 178 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

87 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2018) Table 10. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 88 1,259 8.1 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 89 1,241 8.0 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 85 1,508 7.8 5,000,000 0.15

88 GPR (2018) Table 11. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 5.8 — 6.2 — 6.0 — Std. Deviation 0.2 — 0.2 — 0.3 — Fair Average 5.7 — 6.3 — 6.1 — Std. Deviation 0.2 — 0.3 — 0.4 — Poor Average 5.7 — 6.5 — 6.1 — Std. Deviation 0.1 — 0.2 — 0.4 — All Average 5.7 — 6.4 — 6.0 — Std. Deviation 0.2 — 0.3 — 0.4 — Note: — indicates GPR was unable to detect layer. Figure 7. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 15 1.40 1.37 1.34 1.31 1.28 1.25 1.22 1.19 1.16 1.13 1.10 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Concrete Core Asphalt Core Good Fair Poor

89 MIRA (2018) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 12. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 6.3 6.1 6.0 Stdev (inch) 0.6 0.6 0.4 Figure 9. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2018) Table 13. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.08 0.04 0.04 Average (inch) 0.03 0.02 0.01 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.02 0.02 0.02 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

90 Coring and DCP (2018) Core C-3 (good) Core C7 (poor) Core C-3 (good) Core C-8 (poor) Figure 10 Core samples. Table 14. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 7.3 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.5 0.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.9 6.7 0.1 Asphalt 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.3 3.7 0.3 5.7 5.5 12.4 12.4 9.0 3.9

91 Table 15. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 1 2 Aggregate Base 56,932 59,524 58,228 1,296 47,081 N/A 47,081 N/A Subgrade 10,202 11,716 10,959 757 13,833 N/A 13,833 N/A LABORATORY TESTING Table 16. Split Tensile and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C2 334 4,206 C8 450 6,237 C5 450 6,396 Table 17. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (𝒙 𝟏𝟎 𝟔 𝑭) C2 5.073 C5 5.345 Table 18. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C1 4,811 176 Bond Table 19. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Agg Base Good Segment Agg Base Poor Segment Subgrade Good Segment Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 95 99 100 100 25.4 1.00 89 97 100 100 19 0.75 87 94 100 100 12.5 0.50 81 84 100 100 9.5 0.375 75 75 99 99 No.4 0.187 59 56 99 97 No.8 0.094 43 39 97 87 No. 10 0.079 40 36 96 84 No.16 0.047 30 25 87 71 No.30 0.023 19 14 71 50 No. 40 0.017 15 10 63 43 No.50 0.012 12 6 53 28 No.100 0.006 8 2 21 3 No.200 0.003 6 0 7 1 Pan 0 0 0 0 0 LL NP NP 20% 37% PL NP NP 19% 27% PI NP NP 1% 10% AASHTO Soil Classification A-1-b A-1-a A-1-a A-2-4

92 US-6 COLORADO Description/Project Location U.S. Route 6 is an east-west highway with major intersections at the west end with I-70 at Utah state line and US 6 in the east end at the Nebraska state line. The project was located on US Highway 6 east of Fleming to east of Haxtun from mile post 438.8 to 440.8. This stretch of the highway is a two lane with one lane and each direction. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location E of Fleming to E of Haxtun, CO BCOA Construction Year 1998 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled No Longitudinal Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 3/16 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 5.5-inch Asphalt: 6-inch Base: 4-inch ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Existing asphalt concrete is 6 to 7 inches thick.

93 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – CDOT 2004 Thin Whitetopping Design Procedure Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Design life (years) 20 Overlay Thickness (inch) 5.5 Table 3. Traffic Details Begin RP End RP Design ESALs 429.30 431.38 669,000 (10 Year) 431.33 436.00 669,000 (10 Year) Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nom. Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) Class P 1 678 N/A 0.37 142.8 5-7 Mix Designation Cement Source (Type) SCM Source (Class) Aggregate Source Admixtures1 Class P Type IP -Holnam N/A Coarse Agg. No. 57 Poudre Tech Pit Sand: Castle Rock Construction, Haxton Pit Master Builders; MasterPave Plus and PaveAir Mix Proportions Class P Cement (lb) 678 Coarse Aggregate Size 57 (lb) 1630 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1330 Admixture PaveAir (oz) As needed Admixture MasterPave Plus @ 4 oz/cwt) (oz) 27.1 Water (lb) 250 Construction 1. The expansion joint shall be placed full width of the concrete pavement and at the following locations: stations 111+120 and 111+745, the approximately 1,600 meter increments, as directed by the engineer. 2. The cost for all necessary work and materials to complete the expansion joints shall be included in item 412 – concrete pavement (special) (140 mm).

94 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 5. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Eastbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Faulting (inch) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 1999 88 0 0 14 46 2001 80 0 0 40 638 2003 104 0.1 0 23 586 2005 102 0.1 0 38 1,986 2007 108 0.1 0 45 3,718 2009 98 0.1 0 39 3,980 2010 101 0.1 0 32 5,801 2011 92 0.1 0 57 4,263 2012 94 0.1 0 45 6,315 2013 94 0.1 0 2 6,211 2014 98 0 0 189 6,868 2015 101 0 0 137 7,597 2016 113 0 0 168 8,549 2017 100 0.1 0.1 152 9,445 Table 6. Performance Summary―After BCOA―Westbound Year IRI (in/mi) Wear (inch) Faulting (inch) Transverse Cracking (count) Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 1998 103 0.2 0 0 0 2000 120 0 0 8 134 2002 94 0 0 25 721 2004 97 0.2 0 33 3,402 2006 104 0.1 0 47 5,033 2008 99 0.2 0 58 8,088 MAINTENANCE HISTORY Small quantity of concrete patching.

95 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 7. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total EB Average 98 38 0.5 13.4 0.3 14.1 Stdev 14 10 1.4 18.6 1.0 18.8 WB Average 106 47 0.7 30.7 0.1 31.5 Stdev 23 17 1.9 24.9 0.6 25.0 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—eastbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—westbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

96 Manual Condition Survey (2018) Table 8. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 0 55 238 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 15 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 48 49 48 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 73 237 39 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 13 2 3 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 5 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 0 4 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 5 17 Total Slabs Surveyed 47 48 47 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

97 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2018) Table 9. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in3) Poisson's Ratio Good 84 691 6.4 5,000 0.15 Fair 83 860 5.9 5,000 0.15 Poor 85 709 0.5 5,000 0.15

98 GPR (2018) Table 10. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 5.7 7.8 5.7 8.2 5.7 8.0 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.9 Fair Average 5.6 11.3 5.2 12.3 5.4 11.8 Std. Deviation 0.2 1.2 0.3 1.1 0.3 1.3 Poor Average 5.7 14.2 5.2 N/A 5.4 14.2 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.8 0.2 N/A 0.3 0.8 All Average 5.7 11.1 5.4 10.3 5.5 10.8 Std. Deviation 0.2 2.8 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.7 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 8.60 8.63 8.66 8.69 10.12 10.15 10.18 11.51 11.54 11.57 11.60 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Fair Poor Good

99 MIRA (2018) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 11. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 6.1 5.9 6.1 Stdev (inch) 0.4 0.4 0.5 Figure 9. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2018) Table 12. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 -0.04 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.04 0.04 0.04 Average (inch) 0.01 0.00 0.01 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.02 0.01 0.02 4 5 6 7 8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

100 Coring and DCP (2018) Core C-2 (good) Core C-3 (good) Core C-5 (poor) Core C-7 (poor) Figure 10 Core samples. Table 13. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.8 0.1 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 0.1 Asphalt 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.4 0.1 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.4 0.1

101 Table 14. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 3 5 7 Aggregate Base 46,731 30,921 38,826 7,905 29,700 31,600 30,650 945 Subgrade 9,669 5,161 7,415 2,254 9,669 8,043 8,856 813 LABORATORY TESTING Table 15. Split Tensile Strength and Corrected Compressive Strength Core # Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C1 537 8,151 C2 334 4,047 C4 421 5,831 C6 464 6,599 C8 493 7,121 Table 16. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core # CTE (𝒙 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C2 5.046 C6 4.612 Table 17 Soil Classification Sieve Number Sieve Size (inch) Material Type/ Segment Subgrade Good Segment Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 99 100 12.5 0.50 98 100 9.5 0.375 97 97 No.4 0.187 91 87 No.8 0.094 80 70 No. 10 0.079 77 66 No.16 0.047 63 51 No.30 0.023 47 33 No. 40 0.017 40 25 No.50 0.012 27 17 No.100 0.006 12 8 No.200 0.003 4 4 Pan 0 0 0 LL 18% NP PL 17% NP PI 1% NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-1-b A-1-b

102 US-71 IOWA Description/Project Location U.S. Route 71 is a major south-north highway that extends for more than 1,500 miles that goes from Louisiana to the Canada-US border in Minnesota. The project location is near Fostoria, Iowa. The project is located from MP 207.92 to 217.37. This segment, U.S. 71 is a four-lane divided highway. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Fostoria, Clay County, IA BCOA Construction Year 2012 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 3/16 inch Joint Sealed: No Synthetic Microfibers: Unknown Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 6-inch Base: Aggregate

103 ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design 3.5-inch asphalt over 4-inch aggregate base. Additional 1.5-inch asphalt noted for future construction. No project plans were in Region 6 archives. BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method Design method and all data inputs are not available. Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 2,900,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT (2012) 9,400 Single Trucks % 10 Combination Trucks % Not specified 20 Year Factor 1.34 Number of Lanes 4-lane divided Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nominal Max. Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 2012-01 MIX #16 0.75 560 Fly Ash (20%) 0.40 144.1 6.0 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 2012-01 MIX #16 Lehigh Type I HW Port Neal Class C Ash Hallett Materials AEA, WR 1 AEA = Air-Entraining Admixture, WR = Water-Reducer. Mix Proportions 2012-01 MIX #16 Cement (lb) 448 Fly Ash (lb) 112 Coarse Aggregate Size 4 (lb) 1,232 Coarse Aggregate Size 67 (lb) 460 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1,415 Admixture AEA (oz) 2.8 Admixture WR (oz) 16.8 Water (lb) 2243 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Condition of the existing asphalt pavement prior to the BCOA was not provided.

104 MAINTENANCE HISTORY None. CURRENT CONDITION Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 5. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 85 24 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.0 Stdev 13 4 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.4 SB Average 78 20 0 2.2 0.1 2.4 Stdev 10 5 0.2 5.5 0.4 5.4 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

105 Table 6. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 61 10 95 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 2 1 7 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 0 2 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 ft) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 0 Total Slabs Surveyed 174 174 176 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

106 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 7. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in3) Poisson’s Ratio Good 88 416 8.2 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 89 401 8.0 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 85 725 7.5 5,000,000 0.15

107 GPR (2018) Table 8 GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.8 10.4 6.8 10.4 6.8 10.4 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 Fair Average 6.3 3.9 6.6 3.7 6.5 3.8 Std. Deviation 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 Poor Average 6.4 10.4 6.8 9.6 6.6 10.0 Std. Deviation 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.9 0.3 1.0 All Average 6.5 8.2 6.8 7.9 6.6 8.1 Std. Deviation 0.3 3.2 0.4 3.1 0.4 3.1 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 15 2.40 2.43 2.45 2.48 5.11 5.13 5.16 5.19 5.52 5.54 5.57 5.60 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Fair Poor Good

108 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 9. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 6.4 5.9 5.8 Stdev (inch) 0.5 0.3 0.8 Figure 9. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Faultmeter results are not available due to equipment failure. 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

109 Coring and DCP Results (2019) Figure 10. Core C-2 (poor). Table 10. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 BCOA 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 0 6.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 0.4 Asphalt 11.0 10.5 4.5 11.0 9.3 3.2 2.5 12.0 12.0 4.0 7.6 5.1 Unbound Unknown, DCP testing not conducted Subgrade Unknown, DCP testing not conducted LABORATORY TESTING Table 11. Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2)(b) C1 479 N/A 6,759 C2 508 N/A 7,542 C4 N/A 8,296 6,382 P1 508 N/A 7,339 P3 N/A 7,643 5,874 P4 450 N/A 6,353 (a) Predicted compressive strength for cores tested for split tensile strength. Table 12. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core(a) CTE (𝒙 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) F4 6.233 P3 6.280

110 Figure 11. Indirect Tensile Strength Results Figure 12. Hamburg Wheel Testing Results Table 13. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C1 2.276 2.287 0.43 0.43 2.298 0.38 C2 2.270 2.261 0.38 0.38 2.252 0.35 C3 2.318 2.314 0.38 0.38 2.309 0.30 C4 2.334 2.315 0.33 0.33 2.296 0.38 C5 2.231 2.259 0.52 0.52 2.287 0.42 C6 2.325 2.313 0.31 0.31 C7 2.301 2.260 0.32 0.75 2.235 0.75 C8 2.284 N/A 0.35 N/A 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass # 1 Good 1 1 Good 2 1 Good 3 1 Good 4 1 Poor 2 1 Poor 3 1 Poor 4

111 Table 14. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Agg Base Good Agg Base Poor 37.5 1.50 100 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 100 19.0 0.75 96 97 96 12.5 0.50 88 87 82 9.5 0.375 84 81 72 No.4 0.187 78 65 51 No.8 0.094 69 55 35 No. 10 0.079 68 52 33 No.16 0.047 63 45 26 No.30 0.023 52 33 18 No. 40 0.017 45 27 15 No.50 0.012 24 12 9 No.100 0.006 5 2 3 No.200 0.003 1 0 1 Pan 0 0 0 0 LL NP NP NP PL NP NP NP PI NP NP NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-1-b A-1-b A-1-a

112 CH-27 ILLINOIS Description/Project Location Lincoln Memorial Parkway, which is Macon County Highway 27 from C.H. 28 to Old U.S Route 36. The segment is 3.5-miles long. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Harristown, Macon County, IL BCOA Construction Year 2003 Design Details Slab Size: 5.5 ft x 5.5 ft Doweled: Yes Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: N/A Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 5.25-inch Asphalt: 10-inch Base: Unknown ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Approximately 10 inches of asphalt concrete material with 1 inch of oil and chip seal coat. No Existing condition data is available.

113 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Major Collector (non-urban) Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 2,780,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 5.5 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 4,200,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 750 AC Thickness (inch) 6 AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 400,000 AC Poisson's Ratio 0.35 AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) N/A Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 115 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) -1.4 Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) N/A ESAL Conversion Factor N/A Neutral Axis 3.064 le 31.879 L/le 5.25 Overlay Thickness (inch) 5.25 Milling Thickness (inch) 2 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day ADT (2002) 500 Trucks % 10 Number of Lanes 2 Paving Materials Not available. Construction • Contraction and longitudinal joints sawed (1/8 inch width) to a depth of 1/3 the total thickness of the concrete overlay. Joint sealant is not required. • Dowels are required at expansion joints and tie bars are required at transverse construction joint. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA Not available. After BCOA • October 2003-Excellent Condition. • Summer 2008-Excellent Condition. • Spring 2011-Excelent Condition. • Some problems at bridge abutments noticed in Spring 2013. MAINTENANCE HISTORY None.

114 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 4. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 142 28 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 Stdev 30 13 0.7 1.2 0.2 1.4 SB Average 157 27 0.1 0 0.1 0.3 Stdev 32 13 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.7 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

115 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 5. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 2 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 0 0 56 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 1 2 52 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 2 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 2 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 11 Total Slabs Surveyed 192 192 194 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

116 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 6. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 86 622.6 7.5 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 89 442.9 8.1 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 87 672.3 7.8 5,000,000 0.15

117 GPR (2018) Table 7. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 5.4 6.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 Fair Average 5.4 4.9 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.1 Std. Deviation 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 Poor Average 5.3 6.0 5.6 5.0 5.4 5.5 Std. Deviation 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.1 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.99 2.32 2.35 2.38 3.80 3.83 3.86 3.89 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Poor Good Fair

118 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 8. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) No testing 4.9 5.0 Stdev (inch) N/A 0.4 0.5 Figure 9. Example MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 9. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.08 0.04 0.04 Average (inch) 0.03 0.03 0.02 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.02 0.01 0.02 2 4 6 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Fair Poor

119 Coring and DCP (2019) Core C-3 (good) Core C-7 (poor) Figure 10. Core samples. Table 10. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.2 0.1 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.5 0 Asphalt 10.4 9.1 7.5 7.5 8.6 1.4 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.7 0.1 Table 11. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 1 2 Aggregate Base N/A N/A N/A N/A Refusal Refusal N/A N/A Subgrade 7,870 7,429 7,650 221 8,213 7,518 7,866 348 LABORATORY TESTING Table 12. Compressive Strength Core Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2) C1 7,208 5,555 C5 9,572 7,368 C6 8,847 6,802 C8 11,298 8,688

120 Table 13. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C1 5.283 C5 5.506 Figure 11. Indirect tensile strength results. Figure 12. Hamburg wheel test results (C1). Table 14. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C1 2.416 2.361 0.20 0.20 2.306 0.20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 200 400 600 800 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass #

121 Table 15. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C2 2,293 84 Bond and cohesive C4 1,551 56 Bond Figure 13. Composite concrete-asphalt shear test results. Table 16. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Subgrade Poor 37.5 1.50 100 95 25.4 1.00 100 95 19 0.75 97 84 12.5 0.50 89 73 9.5 0.375 81 68 No.4 0.187 59 53 No.8 0.094 43 41 No. 10 0.079 40 39 No.16 0.047 31 33 No.30 0.023 21 25 No. 40 0.017 16 20 No.50 0.012 10 14 No.100 0.006 6 8 No.200 0.003 4 4 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% 18% PL 30% 15% PI 13% 2% AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-1-a

122 SR-53 ILLINOIS Description/Project Location IL 53 MP unknown (Between Wilmington and Elwood – urban locations), Will County. This project begins approximately 476 ft south of South Arsenal Road and extends in a northeasterly direction 114 ft southwest of Hoff Road within City of Wilmington, Village of Elwood and unincorporated Will County. The net length of the project is 22,809 feet (4.32 miles). In total 125,350 yd2, it includes 4 lb/yd3 structural fibers in the concrete mix. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Wilmington, Will County, IL BCOA Construction Year 2012 Design Details Slab Size: 4 ft x 4 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8-inch Joint Sealed No Synthetic Microfibers: Yes Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 4-inch Asphalt: 6-inch Concrete Base: 9-inch Note: This project includes an underlying concrete layer and does not represent the typical BCOA design.

123 ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN The existing pavement consisted of 7 to 10 inches of asphalt over an older concrete pavement. BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Other Primary Design life (years) N/A 18 k ESAL N/A Joint Spacing (inch) 48 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 3,600,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 750 AC Thickness (inch) 6 AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 350,000 AC Poisson's Ratio 0.35 AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) N/A Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 100 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) -1.4 Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) N/A ESAL Conversion Factor N/A Neutral Axis N/A Le N/A L/le N/A Overlay Thickness (inch) 4 Milling Thickness (inch) 4 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day ADT (2011) 7,850 Heavy Commercial Volume 1,350 Multiple Unit Vehicles 925 Number of Lanes 2 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nom. Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) PV — 575 Class C Fly Ash 0.41 — 6.5 Mix Designation Cement Source (Type) SCM Source (Class) Aggregate Source Admixtures1 PV Buzzi – Festus, MO LaFarge – Pleasant Prairie, WI Coarse Agg – CM11 Vulcan Joliet Sand – FM02 Ozinga Henry, IL 4 lbs synthetic fibers W.R Grace & Co. Strux 90/40 Mix Proportions PV Cement Type — Cementitious Material (lb) — w/cm — Aggregate Type —

124 Construction • Use sawcut between driving lane and existing HMA shoulder (where necessary) • Tooling of joints is not allowed. The joints shall be sawed as per detail in the plans. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA • IRI = 123 in/mile; rut = 0.14 inches; and Condition Rating Survey (CRS) = 5.5 • Medium level alligator cracking (interconnecting cracks, not severe and may be lightly spalled) • Medium level block cracking (interconnecting cracks, cracks may have light spalling) • Frequent medium severity transverse cracking (≤ 1/4 inch wide) • Infrequent medium severity longitudinal cracking (1/4 to 1/2 inch wide, may have minor spalling) • Infrequent high severity centerline cracking (cracks are open with medium to severe spalling) After BCOA • 2012-Brand New. Slight chatter in construction. • Spring 2013-two apparent joint sections with problems in wet are either side of a railroad overpass. One in immediate vicinity of NB and another about 500-600 feet north of that point. Table 5. Performance Summary Year Direction Milepost IRI (in/mi) Faulting (inch) Distress 2013 SB 8.95 to 13.00 123 0.31 C1 NB 8.95 to 13.36 107 0.18 C1 / E1 / H1 2015 SB 8.95 to 13.18 122 — C1 / H1 / K1 NB 8.95 to 13.36 153 — A2 / C1 / E1 / H1 / K1 2017 SB 8.95 to 13.33 137 0.03 B1 / E1 / I1 NB 8.95 to 13.36 195 0.21 N/A A2: D-cracking low level (cracking pattern is clearly visible; no loose or missing pieces). B1: Transverse cracking low level (hairline cracks, no spalling or faulting; well-sealed crack with no associated distress). C1: Joint deterioration infrequent low level (joint has opened to a width less than 1-inchand/or has spalling (width < 6-inch) and/or faulting up to ¼-inch. The joint has little or no loss of material). E1: Longitudinal cracking low severity infrequent (< ½-inch wide. Little to no spalling and/or faulting is present). H1: Corner breaks infrequent (any severity level). I1: Map cracking and scaling infrequent (low severity map cracking is present; no scaling is present). K1: Less than 6% of the section has been permanently patched. MAINTENANCE HISTORY Asphalt patching.

125 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 6. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 249 69 7.4 3.8 1.7 12.8 Stdev 68 24 4.4 4.3 1.2 7.7 SB Average 176 38 0.8 0.1 0.2 1.1 Stdev 43 9 0.9 0.3 0.5 1.2 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

126 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 7. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 10 11 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 43 37 165 Transverse Cracking (ft) 2 106 104 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 17 10 52 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 1 0 6 Map Cracking (ft2) 1,908 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 7 126 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 36 32 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 33 27 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 12 9 29 Total Slabs Surveyed 396 396 396 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

127 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 8. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 83 916 7.3 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 83 670 6.3 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 80 864 6.3 5,000,000 0.15

128 GPR (2018) Table 9. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 3.5 6.2 3.4 5.8 3.5 6.0 Std. Deviation 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 Fair Average 3.3 3.7 3.1 4.8 4.0 3.6 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 Poor Average 4.0 4.3 4.8 3.6 4.4 4.0 Std. Deviation 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 All Average 3.6 4.7 3.8 4.8 3.7 4.8 Std. Deviation 0.7 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.3 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.99 2.32 2.35 2.38 3.80 3.83 3.86 3.89 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Poor Good Fair

129 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 10. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segments Fair Segments Poor Segments Average (inch) No testing 3.4 3.5 Stdev (inch) N/A 0.4 0.4 Figure 9. Example MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 11. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.16 0.28 0.16 Average (inch) 0.06 0.08 0.09 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.05 0.08 0.05 2 3 4 5 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Fair Poor

130 Coring (2019) Core C-3 (good) Core C-4 (good) Core C-5 (poor) Figure 10. Core samples. Table 12. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.0 0.1 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0 Asphalt 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.7 5.6 0.2 12.6 12.6 12.8 12.8 12.7 0.1 Due to traffic control time restrictions, DCP testing was not conducted.

131 LABORATORY TESTING Table 13. Split Tensile and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C4 N/A 10,443 8,035 C5 435 N/A 5,990 C8 N/A 11,211 8,630 Table 14. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔 𝑭) C4 5.978 C5 5.969 Table 15. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C1 2,518 92 Bond and cohesive C2 3,170 116 Bond Figure 11. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Results

132 Table 16. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Segment Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 100 100 12.5 0.50 99 100 9.5 0.375 99 100 No.4 0.187 97 99 No.8 0.094 94 99 No. 10 0.079 92 99 No.16 0.047 87 98 No.30 0.023 80 90 No. 40 0.017 72 69 No.50 0.012 25 39 No.100 0.006 5 23 No.200 0.003 1 11 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% 20% PL 30% 17% PI 13% 2% AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-2-4

133 I-70 KANSAS Description/Project Location I-70 is a major interstate that runs east-west from Utah to Maryland. In Kansas, I-70 passes through the principal cities in the state. The project limits are from 228.26 (Ellsworth/Lincoln Co Line at 3 miles east of SR 156) to 235.51 (Lincoln/Saline Co Line at 15 mi W of Salina). Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Salina, KS BCOA Construction Year 2012 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 1/8 inch Joint Sealed No Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 17.75-inch Base: Unknown ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Based on historical records and cored samples, the average asphalt pavement thickness was 26.6 inches. A soil survey was completed on I-70 in 1959 and this was used to obtain soil properties. The soil survey was project 70-53 I-70-4(11). The soil samples were classified as clays, loams, silty clay loams and clay loams. The average liquid limit was 43, and the values ranged from 28 to 63. The average plasticity index was 22, and the values ranged from 10 to 39. The subgrade soil resilient modulus was determined by utilizing a backcalculation technique using falling weight deflectometer data. A design value for the subgrade resilient modulus was selected as 6,500 lb/in2. The corresponding modulus of subgrade reaction was selected as 335 lb/in3.

134 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method (unknown) Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Initial Serviceability 4.5 Terminal Serviceability 2.5 Stage Construction 2 Overall Standard Deviation 0.35 Roadbed Soil Resilient Modulus N/A Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (lb/in3) 335 Elastic Modulus of Pavement (lb/in2) 4,000,000 Modulus of Rupture (lb/in2) 600 Load Transfer 2.8 Drainage Coefficient 1.0 AC Thickness 17.75 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) 6 Table 3. Traffic Details Year ESALS 2009-2019 20,490,000 2019-2029 24,550,000 2029-2039** 28,620,000 **ESALs extrapolated from the given data Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nom. Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 2P11065A N/A 564 N/A 0.40 142.31 6.5 2P1171RA N/A 480 N/A 0.43 142.93 6.5 Mix Designation Cement Source (Type) SCM Source (Class) Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 2P11065A Type 1/2(MH) Bulk – Central Plains (MO) N/A CPA-4 Cal Cem Sand, IMA-Cal CEM Sandstone – APAC-Kansas Basic SSG for MA-3 – Johnson Sand Air entraining agent Type A water Reducer Type C Admixture Type F Admixture 2P1171RA Type ½(MH) Bulk – Ash Grove N/A Same as above Air entraining agent Type A water Reducer Mix Proportions 2P11065A 2P1171RA Cement (lb) 564 480 Coarse Aggregate 1 (lb/yd3) 1,435 1,491 Coarse Aggregate 2 (lb/yd3) 275 286 Coarse Aggregate 3 (lb/yd3) 1,343 N/A Admixture AEA (oz/yd3) 4.0 9.0 Admixture WR (oz/yd3) 20.0 21.6 Admixture Type C (oz/yd3) 225 N/A Admixture Type F (oz/yd3) 30. N/A Water (lb) 226 206

135 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Transverse thermal cracking has been persistent throughout the life of the pavement. Several different rehabilitation strategies have tried to delay the reflective cracking with little success. In 1986 the eastbound lanes had an average of 0.1 Code One Cracks and 2.9 Code Two cracks per sample location. The westbound lanes had an average of 2.4 Code Two Cracks per sample location. The cracking continued to deteriorate until a hot recycle was performed in 1992. In 1991 there was an average of 0.1 Code One, 2.0 Code Two and 0.1 Code Three transverse cracks per sample location in the eastbound lanes. In the westbound lanes there was an average of 0.2 Code One and 3.3 Code Two transverse cracks per sample location. In 1992 a 1.0” cold mill and 1.5” hot recycle was completed. The transverse cracks began to reflect through in 1993, and by 1996 84% of the transverse cracks had reflected through in the eastbound lanes and 74% of the transverse cracks had reflected through in the westbound lanes. In 1997, a significant rehabilitation action was completed that resulted in 11.0” of uncracked HMA material at the top of the pavement structure. The reflective cracking began to appear in 2002 and by 2004, 92% of the cracking had reflected through in the eastbound lanes and 65% had reflected through in the westbound lanes. Later in 2004 a Novachip seal was applied and the transverse cracking started to reflect through the seal in 2007. Fatigue cracking first appeared in 2000 with an average of 38 feet of Code One fatigue cracking per sample location in the eastbound lanes. By 2004 there was an average of 72 feet of Code One and 94 feet of Core Two fatigue cracking per sample location in the eastbound lanes and an average of 135 feet of Code Two fatigue cracking per sample location in the westbound lanes. The Novachip action mitigated the fatigue cracking for a couple of years but in 2004 the fatigue cracking started to reflect through. The pavement was at performance Level Three in 1986. A slurry seal was performed in 1987 and improved the performance level to Level One for one year before the pavement dropped to Level Two. It remained at Level Two until the hot recycle and overlay action in 1992 improved the performance level to Level One. By 1997 the performance level had dropped to Level Three and the average IRI in the eastbound lanes was 154 in/mi and in the westbound lanes was 174 in/mi. The cold mill, CIPR and HMA overlay performed in 1997 improved the performance level to Level One and it has remained at Level One since this action. Between 1997 and 2004 the average eastbound IRI was 68 in/mi and the average westbound IRI was 72 in/mi. Since the Novachip action in 2004 the IRI has averaged 49 in/mi in the eastbound lanes and 50 in/mi in the westbound lanes. (NOS: DS1 < 105 in/mi, DS3 > 164 in/mi, where DS1 and DS3 are Distress States 1 and 3, respectively).

136 Table 5. Performance Summary—Prior to BCOA Year Lane IRI (in/mi) Rut (inch) Fatigue Cracking (ft) Transverse Cracking (count/100 ft) Block Cracking 1999 WB 64 < 0.24 — — — EB 67 — — — — 2000 WB 66 — 38 — — EB 66 — — — — 2001 WB 66 — — — — EB 70 — 9 6 — 2002 WB 66 — 142 10 — EB 69 — 130 7 — 2003 WB 67 — 286 5 — EB 80 — 239 5 — 2004 WB 84 — 166 25 — EB 87 < 0.24 135 2 — 2005 WB 70 — — — — EB 74 — — — — 2006 WB 52 — — — — EB 55 — — — — 2007 WB 49 — 2 — — EB 50 — 9 3 — 2008 WB 62 — 6 3 — EB 69 — 0 4 — 2009 WB 58 — 7 9 — EB 55 — 20 10 — 2010 WB 54 — 6 9 — EB 59 — 37 17 — 2011 WB 51 — 39 1 — EB 54 — 15 8 — 2012 WB 80 — — — — EB 86 — — — — Table 6. Performance Summary—After BCOA Year Lane IRI (in/mi) Faulting (inch) Joint Distress (# joints) 2013 WB 65 — — EB 80 — — 2014 WB 51 0 — EB 74 < 0.25 — 2015 WB 59 — — EB 74 — — 2016 WB 66 < 0.25 — EB 77 0 — 2017 WB 69 < 0.25 — EB 106 0 — 2018 WB 74 < 0.25 — EB 92 0 — MAINTENANCE HISTORY Small quantity of concrete patching.

137 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 7. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total EB Average 109 23 0 0 0 0.1 Stdev 10 6 0.3 0.2 0 0.4 WB Average 89 26 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 Stdev 34 12 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.8 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—eastbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—westbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

138 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 8. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 0 0 8 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 0 2 0 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 0 1 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 21 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 6 3 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 1 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 2 Total Slabs Surveyed 176 192 176 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

139 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 9. FWD Results Section LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in3) Poisson’s Ratio Good 97 478 9.9 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 98 407 10.5 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 98 683 10.6 5,000,000 0.15

140 GPR (2018) Table 10. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.1 6.4 6.3 6.0 6.2 6.2 Std. Deviation 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 Fair Average 5.9 5.7 6.1 3.4 6.0 4.6 Std. Deviation 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.4 Poor Average 6.8 6.1 6.9 5.5 6.8 5.8 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 All Average 6.3 6.1 6.4 5.0 6.3 5.6 Std. Deviation 0.6 0.6 1.5 1.3 0.5 1.1 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. Faultmeter (2018) Not conducted due to equipment failure. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 3.70 3.67 3.64 3.61 2.08 2.05 2.02 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.50 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Fair Good Poor

141 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 11. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 5.7 6.2 5.4 Stdev (inch) 0.5 0.2 0.3 Figure 9. Example MIRA scans. 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

142 Coring and DCP (2019) Core C-3 (good) Core C-7 (poor) Figure 10. Core samples. Table 12. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 0 Asphalt 18.1 (a) 18.1 (a) 18.1 0 25.2 27.2 (a) (a) 26.2 1.4 (a) Test not conducted due to time constraint. Table 13. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 1 2 Aggregate Base N/A N/A N/A N/A Refusal Refusal N/A N/A Subgrade 8,877 8,877 8,877 0 4,825 3,982 4,403 8,877

143 LABORATORY TESTING Table 14 Measured and Corrected Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2)(a) C1 508 N/A 7,571 C2 334 N/A 4,119 C4 N/A 7,760 5,976 C5 N/A 6,454 4,960 (a) Predicted compressive strength for cores tested for split tensile strength. Table 15. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C4 5.988 C5 5.710 Figure 11. Hamburg wheel testing (C1). Table 16. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C1 2.171 2.162 0.99 0.99 C1 2.154 1.14 Table 17. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C4 4,271 156 Bond and cohesive C5 3,619 133 Bond C6 4,833 177 Bond C8 2,833 103 Bond 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass #

144 Table 18. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Subgrade Poor 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 100 100 12.5 0.50 100 100 9.5 0.375 100 100 No.4 0.187 99 99 No.8 0.094 98 98 No. 10 0.079 97 97 No.16 0.047 93 92 No.30 0.023 82 78 No. 40 0.017 78 71 No.50 0.012 72 65 No.100 0.006 26 39 No.200 0.003 9 16 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% 32% PL 30% 23% PI 13% 9% AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-2-4

145 US-167 LOUISIANA Description/Project Location U.S. Highway 167 runs in a south-north direction from Abbeville to the Arkansas state line at Junction City. The project is located near the city of Winnfield from Louisiana St. to east of Par Road In this location, U.S. 167 is a four-lane undivided highway. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Louisiana St. to East of Par Rd. 610 BCOA Construction Year 1999 Design Details Slab Size: 4 ft x 4 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8-1/4 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 4-inch Asphalt: 6-inch Base: Unknown ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Not available BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method Not specified.

146 Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value ESAL 6,000,000 Overlay Thickness (inch) 5 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT Not specified Trucks % Not specified Number of Lanes 4 Paving Materials Mix design details are not available. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA Not available. After BCOA Not available. MAINTENANCE HISTORY Not available.

147 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 4. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 276 104 1.1 1.1 0.3 2.5 Stdev 43 25 0.7 1.1 0.4 1.8 SB Average 227 90 0.6 0.6 0 1.3 Stdev 66 28 0.5 0.9 0 1.0 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

148 Manual Condition Survey Table 5. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 2 1 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 29 20 43 Transverse Cracking (ft) 7 4 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 49 45 34 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 11 20 7 Map Cracking (ft2) 921 32 3,371 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 2 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 1,894 2 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 890 756 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 7 3 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 2 1 1 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 5 4 7 Total Slabs Surveyed 326 265 266 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

149 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 6. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 90 1,103 7.3 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 90 939 6.9 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 91 1,359 9.9 5,000,000 0.15

150 Table 7. DCP Results Layer Description Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 4 5 8 Agg. Base CBR N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A Agg. Base Modulus (psi) N/A N/A N/A N/A 58,095 N/A N/A N/A Subgrade CBR 5 7 6 1 6 6 6 0 Subgrade Modulus (psi) 6,785 8,466 7,626 1,189 8,043 refusal N/A N/A GPR (2018) Table 8. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 4.3 11.7 4.9 10.4 4.6 11.1 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.9 Fair Average 4.2 12.8 4.6 11.7 4.4 12.2 Std. Deviation 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.1 Poor Average 4.1 6.0 4.1 6.2 4.2 6.1 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 All Average 4.2 10.3 4.5 9.4 4.4 9.8 Std. Deviation 0.4 3.1 0.6 2.4 0.5 2.8 Figure 7 GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.61 0.64 0.67 0.70 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Core Concrete Core Fair Poor Good

151 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. GPR layer thickness - left wheel path. Table 9. MIRA Results—BCOA Thickness (inch) Statistic Good Segments Fair Segments Poor Segments Average (inch) 9.7 9.4 9.5 Stdev (inch) 1.4 2.0 1.9 Figure 9. Example MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 10. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.04 0.24 0.08 Average (inch) 0.01 0.06 0.04 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.02 0.05 0.03 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 10 20 30 40 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

152 Coring and DCP (2019) Figure 10. Core C-3 (good). Table 11. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 0 4.8 (a) 4.8 4.1 4.6 0.4 Asphalt N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.7 (a) 8.7 9.3 8.9 0.3 (a) Not conducted due to time restriction. Table 12. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 1 2 Aggregate Base N/A N/A N/A N/A 58,095 Refusal 58,095 N/A Subgrade 6,785 8,466 7,625 840 Refusal Refusal 8,043 N/A LABORATORY TESTING Table 13. Split Tensile Strength and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C1 348 4,424 C8 566 8,615 Table 14. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C1 6.181

153 Figure 11. Indirect tensile strength results. Table 15. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Ave Absorption (%) C8 2.358 2.353 0.26 0.26 C8 2.348 0.28 C1 2.311 2.310 0.17 0.17 C1 2.309 0.26 Table 16. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (mm) % Passing Subgrade Good Subgrade Poor 37.5 37.5 100 100 100 25.4 25.4 100 100 100 19.0 19.0 97 99 100 12.5 12.5 94 97 97 9.5 9.5 92 93 95 No.4 4.76 86 84 87 No.8 2.36 79 76 77 No. 10 2 78 75 75 No.16 1.18 72 69 68 No.30 0.6 67 62 60 No. 40 0.42 64 59 56 No.50 0.3 54 50 46 No.100 0.15 8 7 7 No.200 0.075 3 2 2 Pan 0 0 0 0 LL NP 28% 24% PL NP 27% 21% PI NP 1% 3% AASHTO Soil Classification A-3 A-2-4 A-2-4

154 US-425 LOUISIANA Description/Project Location U.S. 425 is a State Highway in Louisiana that runs south-north from near Port Allen to LA 413 near New Roads. The project location is near Ferriday, LA from milepost 1.76 to 3.51 in the northbound direction only. In this stretch, U.S. 425 is a four-lane divided highway. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Ferriday, LA BCOA Construction Year 2003 Design Details Slab Size: 4 ft x 4 ft. Doweled: N/A Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8-1/4 inch Joint Sealed N/A Synthetic Microfibers: Yes Layer Type and Thickness BCOA; 4-inch Asphalt: Unknown Base: Unknown ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN The existing pavement consisted of 9 to 10 inches of asphalt over a soil-cement base (based on core results).

155 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category — Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 4,071,096 Joint Spacing (inch) 48 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) — PCCP Poisson's Ratio — PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 700 AC Thickness (inch) — AC Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) — AC Poisson's Ratio — AC Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) — Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) — Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) — Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) — ESAL Conversion Factor — Neutral Axis — le — L/le — Overlay Thickness (inch) 4 Milling Thickness (inch) — Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day ADT (2003) 7,900 Trucks % 14 Number of Lanes 2 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nom. Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 001 — 564 0 0.42 — 3-5 002 — 611 0 0.42 — — 003 — 658 0 0.42 — — 004 — 611 0 0.38 — —

156 Table 4. Mix Design Details (continued) Mix Designation Cement Source (Type) SCM Source (Class) Aggregate Source Admixtures1 001 Siam Cement — Fine Agg. Setton Construction Coarse Agg. Martin Marietta WRNS – Master Builders 220N AEA – Master Builders MBAE 90 Fibers – SI Concrete Systems. Inforce Fiber Mesh e3 002 Siam Cement — Fine Agg. Setton Construction Coarse Agg. Martin Marietta WRNS – Master Builders 220N AEA – Master Builders MBAE 90 Fibers – SI Concrete Systems. Inforce Fiber Mesh e3 003 Siam Cement — Fine Agg. Setton Construction Coarse Agg. Martin Marietta WRNS – Master Builders 220N AEA – Master Builders MBAE 90 Fibers – SI Concrete Systems. Inforce Fiber Mesh e3 004 Siam Cement — Fine Agg. Setton Construction Coarse Agg. Martin Marietta WRNS – Master Builders 220N AEA – Master Builders MBAE 90 Rheobuild 3000 FC 1 AEA=Air-Entraining Admixture. Material Specification Portland Cement: Type I or II 1001.01 Fly Ash: Class C or F 1018.15 Ground Iron Blast Furnace Slag 1018.28 Aggregates 1003.01 & 1003.02 (≤ 1/3 pavement thickness) Admixtures 1011.02 Water 1018.01 Synthetic Fibers SI Concrete Systems, Inforce Fiber Mesh e3 (3 lb/yd3) Construction Details/Observations • Pavement cracking probably due to delayed sawing. • Slabs damaged due to very early traffic. Special Provisions/Standard Specifications/Project Specific • Synthetic fibers added at rate of 3 lb/yd3. • Slump 4-inch w/o water reducers. 8-inch with super-plasticizer. 2-inch if slip formed. • Air Content – 3 to 5 %. • Minimum flexural design strength of 700 lb/in2 in 28 days testing by ASTM C 78. Open to traffic: 500 lb/in2. • For accelerated early strength projects, 500 lb/in2 in 25 hours. • Curing compound application rate 1.5 x the recommended rate (1.5 gals/100 ft2). • Sawed joints 1/3 depth of the pavement thickness. • Specification – remove and replace < 700 lb/in2 flexural strength. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 5. Pavement Performance History Details Performance Indicator Prior BCOA BCOA 2000 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 IRI (in/mi) 157 170 78 76 92 95 109 123 122 Faulting (inch) 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.0 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.15 0.38 Long. Cracking (ft) 3 0 20 41 153 730 667 679 955 Patching (ft2) 1,170 54,391 0 37 414 67 12 3 11 Trans. Cracking (ft) 854 538 98 91 256 439 431 333 386

157 MAINTENANCE HISTORY Table 6. Maintenance History Details Project Num From To Date of Final Inspection Treatment 026-03-0023 1.70 5.85 2/1/1989 24' X 1 1/2" BIT CONC O'LAY 026-03-0030 1.78 3.44 12/11/1996 MICROSURFACING, PAVEMENT STRIPING AND RELATED WORK 026-03-0036 1.76 3.51 10/20/2003 COLD PLANING, WHITE TOPPING CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 7. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 152 28 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 Stdev 39 4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

158 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 8. Manual Condition Survey Results Manual Distress Survey Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 1 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 1 0 45 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 4 17 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 1 1 0 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 3 1 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 46 525 78 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 5 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 10 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 1 2 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 8 Total Slabs Surveyed 405 32 396 Figure 3. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

159 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 9. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 89 2,375 9.7 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 89 2,414 9.1 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 93 1,329 10.1 5,000,000 0.15

160 GPR (2018) Table 10. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 4.3 11.7 4.9 10.4 4.6 11.1 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.9 Fair Average 4.2 12.8 4.6 11.7 4.4 12.2 Std. Deviation 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.1 Poor Average 4.1 6.0 4.1 6.2 4.2 6.1 Std. Deviation 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 All Average 4.2 10.2 4.5 9.4 4.4 9.8 Std. Deviation 0.4 3.1 0.6 2.4 0.5 2.8 Figure 6. GPR layer thickness—average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Core Concrete Core Poor Fair Good

161 MIRA (2019) Figure 7. MIRA results. Table 11. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 4.5 4.4 4.1 Stdev (inch) 0.9 0.7 0.6 Figure 8. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 12. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment All Segments Average (inch) (a) (a) 0.6 0.6 Std. Deviation (inch) (a) (a) 0.6 0.6 (a) Test not conducted due to traffic control restriction. 3 4 5 6 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

162 Coring and DCP (2019) Figure 9. Core C-3 (good). Table 13. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 0.1 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.8 0.1 Asphalt 9.5 3.9 2.0 (a) 5.1 3.9 10.1 3.5 1.4 1.3 4.1 4.2 (a) Test not conducted due to traffic control restriction. LABORATORY TESTING Table 14. Measured and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C1 N/A 6,454 4,960 C2 276 N/A 3,133 C4 406 N/A 5,526 C8 N/A 6,222 4,786

163 Figure 10. Indirect tensile strength results. Figure 11. Hamburg wheel test results. Table 15. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C5 3,530 129 Bond C6 3,485 128 Bond 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass #

164 Figure 12. Composite concrete-asphalt shear test results. Table 16. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Subgrade Poor 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 90 100 19.0 0.75 82 100 12.5 0.50 72 99 9.5 0.375 68 97 No.4 0.187 60 86 No.8 0.094 53 75 No. 10 0.079 51 73 No.16 0.047 44 65 No.30 0.023 36 51 No. 40 0.017 32 44 No.50 0.012 16 36 No.100 0.006 3 19 No.200 0.003 1 10 Pan 0 0 0 LL NP 41% PL NP 34% PI NP 7% AASHTO Soil Classification A-1-b A-2-4

165 CSAH-7 MINNESOTA Description/Project Location This project is located 0.5 miles north of CSAH 18 to south Grade Road near the city of Hutchinson, MN. Figure 1 Project Location Table 1 Project Details Detail Response Project Location Hutchinson, McLeod County, MN BCOA Construction Year 2009 Design Details Slab Size: Variable (4 ft – 8 ft) Doweled: Yes Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8-inch Joint Sealed No Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 5-inch Asphalt: 4 – 8-inch Base: 3-inch Note: The variable joint spacing was conducted to allow matching the BCOA joints to working cracks in the asphalt pavement. This design ultimately resulted in early faulting. Minnesota DOT does not recommend this design.

166 ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design 1.5 inches Type 41 wearing course, 3.25 inches Type 31 base course, 2.5 inches 2331 plant mixed bituminous and 1.5 inches 2321 road mixed bituminous. BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method Table 2 Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL N/A Joint Spacing (inch) 48 – 96 AC Thickness (inch) 4 – 8 Overlay Thickness (inch) 5 Milling Thickness (inch) 2.4 – 3.6 Table 3 Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT (2010) 2,200 Projected Heavy Commercial ADT (2030) 320 Combination Trucks % N/A 20 Year Factor N/A Number of Lanes 2 Paving Materials Table 4 Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nominal Max. Agg. Size Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 3A21-3 1 1/2-in. 585 29 0.4 N/A 7 3A21-4 1 1/2-in. 600 30 0.4 N/A 7 3A21-5 1 1/2-in. 585 29 0.4 N/A 7 3A21-6 1 1/2-in. 600 30 0.4 N/A 7 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 3A21-3, 3A21-4, 3A21-5 and 3A21-6 Type I Lehigh Fly Ash Class C/F Headwaters Coarse – Martin Marrietta Pit 73006 3A21-3, 3A21-4, 3A21-5 and 3A21-6 1 AEA=Air-Entraining Admixture, WR=Water-Reducing. Mix Proportions 3A21-3 3A21-4 3A21-5 3A21-6 Cement (lb) 415 420 415 420 Fly Ash (lb) 170 180 170 180 Coarse Aggregate Size 4 (lb) 784 776 784 776 Coarse Aggregate Size 67 (lb) 1055 1045 1055 1045 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1176 1164 1176 1164 Admixture 1 (oz/yd3) 0.2-3.5 0.2-3.5 0.2-3.5 0.2-3.5 Admixture 2 (oz/100 # CM) 3-7 3-7 3-7 3-7 Admixture 3 (oz/100 # CM) — — 5-10 5-10 Water (lb) 234 240 234 240 Note: L1U – single saw cut, untied, unsealed joint.

167 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA Not available. After BCOA Table 5. Agency Condition Survey Results Performance Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Panel Cracked (estimated) 7 8 2.6 N/A Average IRI (in/mi) 87 72 85 86 Average Transverse Joint Faulting (inch) 0.4 0.7 0.8 N/A Age 6 7 8 9 MAINTENANCE HISTORY Concrete patching.

168 CURRENT CONDITION Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 6 Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 90 33 0.1 2.2 0.5 2.8 Stdev 33 8 0.4 2.5 0.7 2.8 SB Average 89 30 0.3 3.7 0.2 4.2 Stdev 23 7 0.6 3.2 0.4 3.1 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

169 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 7. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 18 31 115 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 21 0 9 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 1 0 3 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 146 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 ft) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 0 Total Slabs Surveyed 178 180 174

170 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment. Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 8 FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 83 443 6.6 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 81 548 5.4 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 78 250 6.7 5,000,000 0.15

171 GPR (2018) Table 9 GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA Asphalt BCOA Asphalt BCOA Asphalt Good Average 5.9 7.8 6.7 8.1 5.8 7.9 Std. Deviation 0.9 1.3 0.4 1.1 0.7 1.2 Fair Average 4.9 9.0 5.3 9.2 5.1 9.1 Std. Deviation 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.5 1.0 Poor Average 4.7 6.3 4.8 6.5 4.8 6.4 Std. Deviation 0.3 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.3 1.4 All Average 5.2 7.7 5.3 7.9 5.2 7.8 Std. Deviation 0.8 1.7 0.5 1.6 0.7 1.6 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.82 0.85 0.88 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.54 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mi) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Fair Poor Good

172 MIRA Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 10 MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 5.8 5.3 4.9 Stdev (inch) 0.5 0.3 0.3 Figure 9. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 11 Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 Maximum (inch) 0.09 0.10 0.11 Average (inch.) 0.03 0.03 0.04 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.03 0.02 0.03 3 4 5 6 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 B C O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

173 Coring and DCP (2019) Figure 10. Core C-7 (poor). Table 12 Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.3 0.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) N/A 6.0 Asphalt 14.0 (a) (a) (a) N/A N/A (a) (a) (a) (a) N/A 14.0 (a) Core not obtained due to traffic control restrictions. Table 13 DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 4 5 6 Aggregate Base (a) (b) N/A N/A (b) (b) N/A N/A Subgrade (a) (b) N/A N/A (b) (b) N/A N/A (a) Refusal. (b) Not obtained due to traffic control restrictions. LABORATORY TESTING Table 14 Split Tensile Strength and Corrected Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2) C6 435 5,889 C3 493 7,281 C1 406 5,366 C4 551 8,354 C5 493 7,237 C2 493 7,165 C8 566 8,572

174 Table 15 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭 C1 5.159 C4 5.431 C5 4.693 Table 16 Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Segment Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 94 98 12.5 0.50 87 92 9.5 0.375 82 88 No.4 0.187 72 72 No.8 0.094 64 55 No. 10 0.079 62 52 No.16 0.047 54 40 No.30 0.023 36 21 No. 40 0.017 27 14 No.50 0.012 16 8 No.100 0.006 5 3 No.200 0.003 2 2 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% NP PL 30% NP PI 13% NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-1-b

175 CSAH-22 MINNESOTA Description/Project Location County Road 22 begins in Elk River and ends in Wyoming, MN. The project was near Nowthen, MN. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Nowthen, Anoka County, MN BCOA Construction Year 2011 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled: Yes Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8 inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 3-inch Base: 13-inch ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design The existing pavement consists of 5 inches of asphalt concrete, over 5 inches of aggregate base (CL- 5A), over 8 inches of aggregate base (CL-4).

176 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – not specified Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 904,339 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 AC Thickness (inch) 3 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) 2 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT (2010) 6,124 Projected Heavy Commercial ADT (2030) 597 Number of Lanes 2 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nominal Max. Agg. Size Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 3A21-1 1 572 30 0.36 144.1 7.0 3A41-2 1 572 30 0.39 143.0 7.0 3A21HE-3 1 599 0 0.35 145.4 7.0 3A41HE-4 1 599 0 0.39 143.9 7.0 3A21-5 1 530 25 0.35 145.4 7.0 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 3A21, 3A41, 3A21HE, 3A41HE, 3A21 Type I/II – Lafarge, Davenport, IA Fly Ash Class C/F Headwaters, Coal Creek CA 1 – Al-Lakeville Pit 19004 CA 2 and Sand – Al-Elk River Pit 71041 AEA – AEA-92 Brett WR – Eucon WR-91 Brett 1 AEA=Air-Entraining Admixture, WR=Water-Reducing. Table 4. Mix Design Details (continued) Mix Proportions 3A21-1 3A41-2 3A21HE-3 3A41HE-4 3A21-5 Cement (lb) 400 400 599 599 400 Fly Ash (lb) 172 172 0 0 130 Coarse Aggregate Size 4 (lb) 467 460 467 458 482 Coarse Aggregate Size 67 (lb) 1432 1411 1434 1404 1477 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1214 1196 1215 1190 1252 Admixture 1 (oz/yd3) 2.0-12.0 2.0-12.0 2.0-12.0 2.0-12.0 2.0-12.0 Admixture 2 (oz/100 # CM) 2.0-7.0 2.0-7.0 2.0-7.0 2.0-7.0 2.0-7.0 Water (lb) 206 223 210 234 186 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA Not available.

177 After BCOA Table 5. Agency Condition Survey Results Performance Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Panel Cracked (estimated) <1 <1 <1 N/A Average IRI (in/mi) 67 69 85 96 Average Transverse Joint Faulting (inch) 0.5 0.6 0.9 N/A Age 4 5 6 7 MAINTENANCE HISTORY None.

178 CURRENT CONDITION Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 6. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total EB Average 92 31 0 0 0 0.1 Stdev 16 8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 WB Average 99 37 0.1 0 0 0.1 Stdev 16 7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.5 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—eastbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—westbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng ( m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng ( m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

179 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 7. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 0 0 7 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 4 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 173 176 177 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 1,058 684 1,060 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 1 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 1 0 1 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 1525 130 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 3 0 3 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 ft) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 1 1 Total Slabs Surveyed 172 176 174

180 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment. Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 8. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 64 459 8.2 5,000,000 0.15 Fair Testing not conducted due to traffic control time restriction Poor 75 846 9.6 5,000,000 0.15

181 GPR (2018) Table 9. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.2 3.7 5.2 3.2 5.7 3.5 Std. Deviation 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 Fair Average 6.0 4.1 6.0 4.4 6.0 4.2 Std. Deviation 0.6 1.7 0.8 1.7 0.3 0.8 Poor Average 6.6 6.3 6.6 6.1 6.6 6.3 Std. Deviation 0.9 2.0 0.7 1.9 0.8 1.9 All Average 6.3 4.8 6.0 4.8 6.2 4.8 Std. Deviation 0.6 1.8 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.7 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness—average of both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.82 0.85 0.88 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.54 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mi) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Fair Poor Good

182 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 10. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 5.9 6.2 7.3 Stdev (inch) 0.3 0.4 0.6 Figure 9. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 11. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) -0.06 Test not conducted due to traffic control restriction -0.05 Maximum (inch) 0.09 0.11 Average (inch) 0.02 0.03 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.03 0.03 5 6 7 8 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

183 Coring and DCP (2019) Core C-3 (good) Core C-7 (poor) Figure 10. Core samples. Table 12. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.6 0.1 7.3 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 0.1 Asphalt 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.2 0.1 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.5 0.2 Table 13. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 3 5 7 Aggregate Base N/A N/A N/A N/A Refusal Refusal N/A N/A Subgrade 20,048 14,580 17,314 3,866 Refusal Refusal N/A N/A LABORATORY TESTING Table 14. Split Tensile Strength and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C1 421 5,627 C2 319 3,800 C5 450 6,367 C6 609 9,601 C8 406 5,497

184 Table 15. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟎−𝟔𝟔𝑭𝑭) C4 6.169 C5 5.751 Figure 11. Indirect tensile strength results (C8). Figure 12. Hamburg wheel testing results Table 16. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C5 2.262 2.292 0.28 0.28 2.323 0.27 C6 2.392 2.348 0.44 0.44 2.303 0.28 C8 2.318 2.283 0.28 0.28 2.248 0.67 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 200 400 600 800 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass # C5 C6 C8 2 2 2

185 Table 17. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Segment Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 99 90 12.5 0.50 93 82 9.5 0.375 86 77 No.4 0.187 75 66 No.8 0.094 66 58 No. 10 0.079 65 56 No.16 0.047 57 50 No.30 0.023 39 35 No. 40 0.017 29 28 No.50 0.012 9 18 No.100 0.006 1 7 No.200 0.003 0 2 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% NP PL 30% NP PI 13% NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-1-b

186 I-35 MINNESOTA Description/Project Location Interstate 35 is a south-north interstate highway that stretches from Laredo Texas, to Duluth, Minnesota. In Minnesota, I-35 enters the state near Albert Lea and ends near the shore of Lake Superior in Duluth. Near North Branch, MN, the project consisted of 7.1 miles. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location North Branch, Chisago County, MN BCOA Construction Year 2009 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 1/8-inch Joint Sealed Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch (6.5-inch as built) Asphalt: 12.5-inch Emulsion stabilized: 3-inch Select granular: 12-inch ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN The top of the subgrade consisted of 12 inches select granular material; top 3 inches of which were stabilized with asphalt emulsion. On top of this, the designed section consisted of 4 inches bituminous treated 2204 Class 5 base, 4.5 inches 2331 bituminous base course, 2 inches 2331 binder course, and 1.5 inches 2351 wearing course.

187 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – not specified Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 9,055,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 AC Thickness (inch) 4 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) 4 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT (2010) 27,700 Projected HCADT (2030) N/A Combination Trucks % N/A 20 Year Factor N/A Number of Lanes 4 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nominal Max Agg. Size (inch) Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 3A21 1.5 572 30 0.36 N/A 7.0 3A41 1.5 572 30 0.39 N/A 7.0 3A21HE 1.5 625 0 0.36 N/A 7.0 3A41HE 1.5 625 0 0.39 N/A 7.0 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 3A21, 3A41, 3A21HE and 3A41HE Type I-II, Lafarge Davenport, IA Fly Ash Class C/F – Headwaters, Coal Creek, ND CA #1, 2 and Sand – Knife River Pit No. 33088 CA #3 and Coarse Sand – Agg. Ind. Pit No. 13004 #1 GRT Paver + #2 GRT SA Mix Proportions 3A21 3A41 3A21HE 3A41HE Cement (lb) 400 400 625 625 Fly Ash (lb) 172 172 0 0 Coarse Aggregate CA-2 (lb) 587 578 576 567 Coarse Aggregate CA-50 (lb) 1,191 1,172 1,168 1,148 Coarse Aggregate 3/8 in (lb) 155 153 152 150 Coarse Sand (lb) 678 667 665 654 Fine Aggregate (lb) 528 520 518 509 Admixture 1 (oz/cy) 40 40 40 40 Admixture 2 (oz/100 # CM) 5 5 5 5 Water (lb) 206 223 225 244

188 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Table 5. Performance Summary—Prior to BCOA Year Northbound Southbound RQI SR RQI SR 2006 2.7 3.1 2.9 3.3 2007 2.7 N/A 2.7 N/A 2008 2.4 2.9 2.7 3.2 Note: RQI – ride quality index, SR – structural rating. Table 6. Performance Summary—After BCOA Performance Summary 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Panel Cracked (estimated) 2.5 N/A N/A N/A Average IRI (in/mi) 74.2 65.2 89.8 95.5 Range of IRI (in/mi) 50-140 48-114 60-198 63-150 85th Percentile IRI (in/mi) 88.2 93.9 115.8 116.2 Average Transverse Joint Faulting (inch) N/A N/A N/A N/A Survey Date Age (yrs) Cracks and other distresses Joint Faulting 2015 6 Cracking was mostly transverse reflective cracking (developed after first winter), along a few longitudinal cracks. Overall, 2.5% cracking found during a 1 mile crack survey beginning at mile marker 152 traveling southbound. Not surveyed 2016 7 No survey conducted Not surveyed 2017 8 No survey conducted Not surveyed 2018 9 No survey conducted N/A MAINTENANCE HISTORY None.

189 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 7. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 70 32 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.1 Stdev 7 5 0.2 0.4 1.4 1.4 SB Average 88 38 0.1 0.1 1.2 1.4 Stdev 13 7 0.3 0.4 1.8 1.9 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

190 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 8. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Cracking (ft) 18 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 178 0 178 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 162 0 560 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 5 0 1 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 4 0 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 ft) 4 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 0 0 Total Slabs Surveyed 176 0 176 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

191 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 9. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 84 732.1 10.7 5,000,000 0.15 Fair No testing conducted due to traffic control time restrictions. Poor 82 687.3 8.4 5,000,000 0.15

192 GPR (2018) Table 10. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.0 N/A 6.8 N/A 6.4 N/A Std. Deviation 0.2 N/A 0.4 N/A 0.5 N/A Fair Average 6.0 N/A 6.4 N/A 6.2 N/A Std. Deviation 0.2 N/A 0.3 N/A 0.3 N/A Poor Average 6.6 N/A 7.1 N/A 6.5 N/A Std. Deviation 0.5 N/A 0.3 N/A 0.4 N/A All Average 6.2 N/A 6.8 N/A 6.5 N/A Std. Deviation 0.4 N/A 0.5 N/A 0.5 N/A N/A – layer not detectable by GPR. Figure 6. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 2.00 1.97 1.95 1.92 1.39 1.37 1.34 1.31 0.79 0.76 0.73 0.71 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Concrete Core Asphalt Core Good Fair Poor

193 MIRA (2019) Figure 7. MIRA results. Table 11. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 6.1 6.3 Not tested Stdev (inch) 0.4 0.2 0.6 Figure 8. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 12. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) -0.02 Test not conducted due to time constraint 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.06 0.11 Average (inch) 0.02 0.04 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.02 0.03 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 20 30 40 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair

194 Coring and DCP (2019) Figure 9. Core C-3 (good). Table 13. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.3 0 6.25 (a) (a) (a) N/A N/A Asphalt 14.0 (a) (a) (a) N/A N/A 10.0 (a) (a) (a) N/A N/A (a) Core not obtained due to traffic control restrictions. Table 14. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 4 5 6 Aggregate Base (a) (b) N/A N/A (b) (b) N/A N/A Subgrade (a) (b) N/A N/A (b) (b) N/A N/A (a) Refusal. (b) Not obtained due to traffic control restrictions. LABORATORY TESTING Table 15. Split Tensile Strength and Predicted Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Predicted Compressive (lb/in2) C1 319 3,844 C2 334 4,105 C5 348 4,351 Table 16. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝐅) C1 6.320

195 Figure 10. Indirect Tensile Strength Results. Figure 11. Hamburg Wheel Testing Results Table 17. Bulk Specific Gravity Core Gmb Average Gmb Absorption (%) Average Absorption (%) C1 2.282 2.255 0.54 0.54 2.227 0.63 C5 2.424 2.436 0.59 0.59 2.449 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass # 5 C1 5 C5

196 Table 18. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Subgrade Poor 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 100 97 12.5 0.50 99 92 9.5 0.375 98 87 No.4 0.187 95 76 No.8 0.094 92 69 No. 10 0.079 92 67 No.16 0.047 90 63 No.30 0.023 88 55 No. 40 0.017 84 52 No.50 0.012 54 50 No.100 0.006 14 48 No.200 0.003 5 48 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% NP PL 30% NP PI 13% NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-3

197 TH-30 MINNESOTA Description/Project Location Minnesota State Highway 30 or Trunk Highway (TH) 30 is a highway that runs from Pipestone, MN to the intersection with Minnesota Highway 43 in Rushford. Located near Amboy, MN. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Amboy, Blue Earth County, MN BCOA Construction Year 1993 Design Details Slab Size: 12 ft x 12 ft Doweled: Yes and no Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 1/8-inch Joint Sealed: Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 4.25-inch Soil-Cement Treated Base: 6-inch

198 Table 2. Test Section Special Features Section Thickness and Type Location Special Features 1 3-inch HMA Overlay MP 118.96-120.47 2 5-inch HMA Overlay MP 120.47-121.98 3 5-inch min BCOA undoweled MP 121.98-122.98 3/4 min dowels 1st 10 panels 4 5-inch min BCOA doweled MP 123.93-124.48 3/4 min dowels throughout 5 6-inch BCOA undoweled MP 122.98-123.93 Placed over milled HMA 6 5-inch minimum unbonded concrete overlay MP 124.48-124.58 Bond breaker – 2 coats of curing compound Control 5-inch min BCOA undoweled MP 124.58-120.40 ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design Gravel road in 1934. It was reconstructed in 1955 with a soil cement treated base 6 inches thick and a 1.5 inch HMA wearing surface. A 2.75 inch overlay was placed in 1973. BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – not specified Table 3. Design Inputs Design Parameter Input Value Highway Category N/A Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 576,000 Joint Spacing (inch) 144 AC Thickness (inch) 4.25 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6 Milling Thickness (inch) — Table 4. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT (1993) 385 Projected HCADT (2030) 110 Combination Trucks % N/A 20-Year Factor N/A Number of Lanes 2 Paving Materials Mix design details are unavailable. Construction A. Place edge drains on both sides of the roadway according to current standards. Place at a minimum depth of 24 inches for test sections #1 and #2. Place at a 30 inches minimum depth for the remainder of the project. B. Aggregates for all bituminous items shall be 0.75-inch (type B aggregates). Concrete aggregates will be class A. C. Concrete joints shall be skewed and spaced at 12 ft intervals. Hot pour will be utilized as joint seal material. D. Aggregate shouldering shall be constructed in accordance with MNDOT spec. 2221, modified as follows, Aggregates for class 5 shouldering shall conform to the requirements of MNDOT specification 3138 and may be sampled, tested and inspected by the department at any time prior to placement. E. Prior to placing any of the concrete whitetopping, the in-place bituminous shall be cleared of all foreign materials by sweeping and air blasting.

199 F. No RAP material will be allowed for any bituminous item within this contract. G. All TWP and CO. RD. crossings in the concrete whitetopping area shall require high early concrete. H. The contractor shall provide 2500 ft of white opaque polyethylene film sheeting in lieu of membrane curing compound at a test section location to be determined by the engineer in the field. I. Bond breaker in test section 6 can be a heavy coat of curing compound or other approved material. If a concrete curing compound is used then it shall be placed in two applications of compound at the rate of 1 gal per 150 ft2 per application. This results in approximately 163 gallons. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA (1992) • Severe pavement deterioration caused by weak soils and an underlying soil-cement base layer. After BCOA (1994) • Ride – Generally good. Most of the “wave” originally constructed in the pavement has been removed by grinding the east 3 miles of the project. The ride for the concrete portion was similar to the bituminous sections. Shrinkage cracks on the bituminous sections were spaced at about 250 feet. • Patching – There were several small square patches, approximately 8 inch square of epoxy grout. Most of them were located near the centerline in the east 3 mils of the project. The patching was placed to repair some initial defects in the concrete paving operations. Shrinkage cracking observed in some patches. • Cracks – Random cracks were found. All the cracks had been routed and filled with a bituminous crack sealer. In each case the bond of the crack sealer had failed. • Transverse Joints – Most of the transverse joints on the project had not cracked. Crack width varied to a max of ¾-inch Bond failure was significant in almost every joint that had cracked. Table 5. Performance Summary Condition 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Panel Cracked (estimated) 8.0 N/A N/A 6.8 Average IRI (in/mi) 136 139 142 151 Range of IRI (in/mi) 79-225 67-236 62-197 84-231 85th Percentile IRI (in/mi) 168 186 167 193 Average Transverse Joint Faulting (mm) 2.0 N/A N/A N/A MAINTENANCE HISTORY Concrete patching and joint resealing.

200 CURRENT PERFORMANCE Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 6. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total EB Average 121 46 1.1 5.6 0.3 7.0 Stdev 29 13 1.9 7.8 0.9 8.1 WB Average 139 67 0.9 12.3 0.3 13.6 Stdev 34 24 1.7 15.1 0.8 15.4 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—westbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—westbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

201 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 7. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 3 44 204 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 18 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 45 43 45 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 13 3 16 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 226 10 88 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 5 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 298 2,633 68 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 2 feet) 0 0 7 Cracked Slabs (Transverse Cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 0 5 17 Total Slabs Surveyed 45 42 45 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

202 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 8. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 85 426 11.2 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 85 371 11.0 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 81 443 10.5 5,000,000 0.15

203 GPR (2019) Table 9. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 6.3 7.8 6.4 7.5 6.4 7.7 Std. Deviation 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.9 Fair Average 6.3 8.8 6.2 8.0 6.3 8.3 Std. Deviation 0.3 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.3 1.0 Poor Average 6.1 7.9 6.1 7.2 6.1 7.9 Std. Deviation 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.0 All Average 6.2 8.1 6.2 7.7 6.2 7.9 Std. Deviation 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 1.0 Note: discontinuities indicate GPR was unable to detect layer. Figure 7. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. 0 3 6 9 12 15 7.00 6.97 6.95 6.92 2.69 2.66 2.64 2.61 2.08 2.06 2.03 2.00 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Poor Fair Good

204 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 10. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 5.5 6.0 6.9 Stdev (inch) 0.9 0.9 0.6 Figure 9. Sample MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 11. Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 -0.07 0.06 Maximum (inch) 0.03 0.30 0.24 Average (inch) 0.02 0.07 0.13 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.01 0.07 0.05 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 20 30 40 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

205 Coring and DCP (2019) Core C-1 (good) Core C-5 (poor) Core C-7 (poor) Figure 10. Core samples. Table 12. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 6.1 5.9 6.1 5.9 6.0 0.1 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.5 0.2 Asphalt (a) (a) 5.7 (a) 5.7 N/A 5.5 5.5 (a) (a) 5.5 0 (a) Core not obtained due to traffic control restrictions.

206 Table 13. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 4 5 6 Aggregate Base (a) (a) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Subgrade 6,595 (a) N/A N/A 8,213 5,050 6,632 2,237 (a) Test not obtained due to traffic control restrictions. LABORATORY TESTING Table 14. Split Tensile and Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2)(a) C1 479 N/A 6,703 C4 435 N/A 5,903 C5 319 N/A 3,759 C8 N/A 6,802 5,236 (a) Predicted compressive strength for cores tested for split tensile strength. Table 15. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C1 5.834 C6 5.778 Table 16. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good Segment Subgrade Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 100 100 19.0 0.75 100 100 12.5 0.50 100 96 9.5 0.375 99 93 No.4 0.187 97 83 No.8 0.094 92 73 No. 10 0.079 91 72 No.16 0.047 84 63 No.30 0.023 64 44 No. 40 0.017 47 33 No.50 0.012 24 14 No.100 0.006 4 2 No.200 0.003 0 0 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% NP PL 30% NP PI 13% NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-1-b

207 US-60 MISSOURI Description/Project Location US-60 is a main east-west highway located in southern Missouri. This project is located in the vicinity of Nesho, MO between Interstate-49 to the west and Highway 59 to the east. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Approximately 1.2 mi SW of Neosho MP 21.7 to 23.8 BCOA Construction Year 1999 Design Details Slab Size: 4 ft x 4 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8-inch Joint Sealed No Synthetic Microfibers: Yes Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 4-inch Asphalt: 6-inch Rolled stone base: 10-inch Type 1 aggregate: 12-inch ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN Structural Design The original pavement was constructed in 1960 with 12 inches of Type 1 aggregate and 10 inches of rolled stone base with 3 inches of Type B mix and 1.25 inches of Type C mix asphaltic concrete. In 1974, 1.75 inches of Type C mix was added. At some point in time a 1-inch leveling course was added making a total of 7 inches of asphalt pavement at the time this project was selected.

208 BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – not specified Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Joint Spacing (inch) 48 AC Thickness (inch) 6 Overlay Thickness (inch) 4 Milling Thickness (inch) 2-4 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day AADT (1999) 21,452 Trucks % 10 Number of Lanes 2 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nominal Max. Agg. Size Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) N/A 1 592 N/A 0.42 144.4 5.5 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 N/A N/A N/A Limestone AEA Fibrilated polypropylene fibers 1 AEA = Air-Entraining Admixture. Mix Proportions Quantity Cement (# bags) 6.3 Coarse Aggregate Size 4 (lb) 1810 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1284 Admixture AEA (oz/ft3) 0.02 Fibers (lb/yd3) 3 Water (gal) 1.7 Construction Observations 1. No problems adding the fibrillated polypropylene fibers. 2. Consolidation accomplished in 90 seconds. 3. Fibers seemed to have no effect on air content and no major effect on slump. 4. Temperature range upper 50s to the 70s during construction. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA Not available. After BCOA • 168 panes cracked or spalled (600 panels surveyed) • Most failures observed near eastern intersection and at construction joints MAINTENANCE HISTORY Periodically replacing broken panels with asphalt or concrete pavement.

209 CURRENT CONDITION Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 5. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total EB Average 186 41 1.7 1.3 0.1 3.2 Stdev 33 21 2.2 1.6 0.2 4.0 WB Average 180 35 3.1 0.8 0.1 4.0 Stdev 43 20 3.6 0.7 0.2 3.3 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—eastbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—eastbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

210 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 6. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 2 7 35 Durability D-Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 8 70 60 Transverse Cracking (ft) 3 25 7 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 9 17 33 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 1 6 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 209 348 0 Scaling (ft2) 1 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 2 84 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 31 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (transverse cracks ≥ 2 ft) 1 9 3 Cracked Slabs (transverse cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 1 11 9 Total Slabs Surveyed 396 393 402 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

211 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor egment. FWD (2019) Table 7. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good Testing not conducted due to traffic control time constraint Fair 74 1,725 6.3 5,000,000 0.15 Poor Testing not conducted due to traffic control time constraint

212 GPR Results (2018) Table 8. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.7 4.5 Std. Deviation 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 Fair Average 6.0 4.8 5.6 4.6 5.8 4.7 Std. Deviation 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 Poor Average 4.4 5.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.2 Std. Deviation 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 All Average 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.6 5.0 4.8 Std. Deviation 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 Figure 7. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. 0 2 4 6 8 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.00 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Good Poor Fair

213 MIRA (2019) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 9 MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness (inch) Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 4.3 4.4 4.3 Stdev (inch) 0.9 0.6 0.6 Figure 9. Example of MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2019) Table 10 Faultmeter Measurements Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Minimum (inch) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum (inch) 0.12 0.04 0.04 Average (inch) 0.02 0.01 0.00 Std. Deviation (inch) 0.03 0.02 0.01 3 4 5 6 7 0 5 10 15 20 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

214 Coring and DCP (2019) Table 11 Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 0.1 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.3 0.1 Asphalt 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5 4.7 0.1 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.5 0.1 Base N/A 10.5 N/A 9.8 10.2 0.5 N/A 8.3 N/A 11.4 9.9 2.2 Table 12 DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 2 4 6 8 Aggregate Base 46,922 51,626 49,274 3,326 48,902 53,003 50,592 2,900 Subgrade 12,931 10,865 11,898 1,461 14,580 14,085 14,333 350 LABORATORY TESTING Table 13 Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2) C1 7,948 6,121 C6 7,223 5,555 Table 14 Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C3 2,608 95 Cohesive C4 3,709 135 Bond and cohesive C5 2,316 85 Cohesive C7 2,383 87 Cohesive C8 4,856 178 Bond

215 Figure 10 Composite concrete-asphalt shear test results.

216 Table 15 Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Agg Base 37.5 1.50 100 25.4 1.00 99 19.0 0.75 95 12.5 0.50 82 9.5 0.375 71 No.4 0.187 47 No.8 0.094 31 No. 10 0.079 28 No.16 0.047 20 No.30 0.023 13 No. 40 0.017 10 No.50 0.012 7 No.100 0.006 2 No.200 0.003 0 Pan 0 0 LL 43% PL 30% PI 13% AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7

217 HWY 16 MONTANA Description/Project Location Highway 16 is located in western Montana, beginning in West Glendive, MT and ends at the Port of Raymond on the Saskatchewan border. This project is located in the vicinity of Glendive, MT between Interstate 94 to the north and Highway 16 to the south. Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Glendive, MT – North Dawson County MP 0.0 to 0.6 BCOA Construction Year 2001 Design Details Slab Size: 4 ft x 4 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: No Sawcut Width: 1/8 inch Joint Sealed: No Synthetic Microfibers: Yes Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 4-inch Asphalt: 6-inch ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN The existing roadway was constructed in 1969. The surfacing consisted of 3-inch asphalt plant mix over 19.8-inch gravel base. The project received a 1.8-inch asphalt plant mix overlay in 1990. BCOA DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method Not specified.

218 Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Principal Arterial Design life (years) 20 Joint Spacing (inch) 48 Overlay Thickness (inch) 4 Milling Thickness (inch) 1.5 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day ADT (1999) 4,260 Single Trucks % 9.1 Combination Trucks % Not specified 20 Year Factor 1.35 Number of Lanes 2 with a turn lane in the middle Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nominal Max. Agg. Size Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) Class BD Modified 0.75 701 12.8 0.38 143.4 5.2 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 Class BD Modified Type I/II - Holman Class C Fly Ash – ISG Resources N/A Master Builders Polyhead 997 WR Master Builders MB AE90 Fibermesh 1 WR=Water-Reducing. Mix Proportions Class BD Modified Cement (lb) 611 Fly Ash (lb) 90 Coarse Aggregate Size 4 (lb) 1740 Fine Aggregate (lb) 1175 Admixture AEA (oz) 17.5 Admixture WR (oz) 35.1 Water (lb) 266.6 Construction 1. Sufficient thickness and quality to support PCCP layer. 2. The milled surface must be clean and dry. 3. Once PCCP has been placed, finished and broomed or tined, curing compound must be applied in a timely manner with appropriate application. 4. The liquid curing compound should be white, to avoid excess heat absorption from the sun. 5. The liquid compound must be constantly agitated during the application to ensure that the mixture is applied correctly. 6. Timing of saw cuts is necessary to prevent premature curing and spalling from the saw blade action with joints. 7. Due to the thickness of the whitetopping pavement, it requires the additional admixture of putting polypropylene unfibrilated fibers in the mix (3 lb per cubic yard). 8. Existing surface milled about 1.5 inches. 9. Some parts showed insufficient layer if AC. The old AC layer needed to be built up to adequately support the PCCP layer. 10. Plant mix asphalt was laid down at an approximate depth of 2 inches.

219 11. To assure a rough surface, sand was placed to allow traffic to wear the surface to insure adhesion of the whitetop. 12. The paver used was an Allen Three-Tube Roller Paver. Unfortunately, the weight of the paver crushed some forms. 13. A special provision had specified a double shot (curing compound) to insure sufficient coverage. 14. Once cured, the joints were cut with an average spacing of 4 feet minimum and 5 feet maximum. 15. Cutting width averaged 3 mm with an average depth of 2.5 mm. 16. Observation – a large amount of spalling was observed. PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Condition prior to BCOA is not available. Table 5. Pavement Condition—After BCOA Year Northbound Southbound Ride Index (in/mi) Transverse (count) Panel Cracks (count) Ride Index (in/mi) Transverse (count) Panel Cracks (count) 2002 52 0 5 56 3 2 2003 45 0 8 50 3 2 2004 45 0 9 50 3 2 2005 45 0 13 50 3 3 2006 45 0 13 50 3 5 2007 45 0 13 50 3 5 2008 45 0 13 50 3 7 MAINTENANCE HISTORY Panel cracks repaired in 2005 with full-depth concrete.

220 CURRENT CONDITION Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 6. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 92 26 0.3 1.0 0.1 1.3 Stdev 11 4 0.3 0.9 0.1 1.3 SB Average 94 27 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 Stdev 10 3 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

221 Manual Condition Survey (2018) Table 7. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 2 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 8 6 8 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 399 398 400 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 1,578 528 639 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 4 4 1 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 0 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Flexible Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Rigid Patch (ft2) 0 48 24 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (transverse cracks ≥ 2 ft) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (transverse cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 2 0 1 Total Slabs Surveyed 396 399 405 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—good segment.

222 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment. Figure 6. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2018) Table 8. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 64 459 8.2 5,000,000 0.15 Fair Testing not conducted due to traffic control time restrictions Poor 75 846 9.6 5,000,000 0.15

223 GPR (2018) Table 9. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt(a) (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt(a) (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 7.0 — 6.1 — 6.6 — Std. Deviation 0.1 — 0.4 — 0.5 — Fair Average 6.5 — 6.0 — 6.3 — Std. Deviation 0.5 — 0.1 — 0.5 — Poor Average 6.9 — 7.2 — 7.1 — Std. Deviation 0.4 — 0.2 — 0.4 — All Average 6.8 — 6.5 — 6.6 — Std. Deviation 0.4 — 0.6 — 0.6 — (a) Layer was not visible or detectable by the GPR device. Figure 7. GPR layer thickness⎯average both wheel paths. 0 2 4 6 8 0.10 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.29 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.40 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Concrete Core Asphalt Core Poor Good Fair

224 MIRA (2018) Figure 8. MIRA results. Table 10. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) 5.0 5.2 5.4 Stdev (inch) 0.7 0.5 0.7 Figure 9. Example of MIRA scans. Faultmeter (2018) Faultmeter testing was not conducted due to traffic control time restrictions. 3 4 5 6 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Good Fair Poor

225 Coring and DCP (2018) Figure 10. Core C-3 (good). Table 11. Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.5 4.5 0.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.3 0.1 Asphalt 3.5 3.7 3.9 3.5 3.7 0.2 2.8 2.9 2.6 3.0 2.8 0.2 Table 12. DCP Results Layer Description Estimated Resilient Modulus (lb/in2) (a) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 2 4 6 8 Aggregate Base Refusal 67,182 N/A N/A Refusal Refusal N/A N/A Subgrade Refusal 30,436 N/A N/A Refusal Refusal N/A N/A (a) Results may be affected by low temperatures during data collection (17°F). LABORATORY TESTING Table 13. Split Tensile and Compressive Strength Core Split-Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2)(a) C2 609 N/A 9,805 C4 N/A 10,791 8,296 C5 580 N/A 8,862 C6 537 N/A 7,963 C8 N/A 10,066 7,745 (a) Predicted compressive strength for cores tested for split tensile strength. Table 14. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C1 1,124 41 Bond

226 Figure 11. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Results. Table 15 Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Agg Base Good Segment Agg Base Poor Segment 37.5 1.50 100 100 25.4 1.00 89 95 19.0 0.75 82 90 12.5 0.50 69 79 9.5 0.375 61 71 No.4 0.187 50 59 No.8 0.094 44 53 No. 10 0.079 42 52 No.16 0.047 38 49 No.30 0.023 31 38 No. 40 0.017 27 33 No.50 0.012 21 19 No.100 0.006 10 9 No.200 0.003 7 6 Pan 0 0 0 LL 43% NP PL 30% NP PI 13% NP AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7 A-1-b

227 US-119 PENNSYLVANIA Description/Project Location The project consisted of a 5-lane, 20.2-mile long segment of US 119. The design consisted of a 6-inch BCOA after the existing asphalt pavement was milled 3.5 to 4.5 inch on the north end of the project. The south ~1,100 ft received a 6-inch unbonded concrete overlay, with the purpose to demonstrate an unbonded concrete overlay on an existing concrete pavement (not included as part of project evaluation). Figure 1. Project location. Table 1. Project Details Detail Response Project Location Uniontown, PA BCOA Construction Year 2010 Design Details Slab Size: 6 ft x 6 ft Doweled: No Tie Bars: Yes Sawcut Width: 1/8-inch Joint Sealed: Yes Synthetic Microfibers: No Layer Type and Thickness BCOA: 6-inch Asphalt: 7.5 to 10 inches Base: 12-inch crushed aggregate Subbase: 6-inch special ORIGINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN The existing asphalt pavement consists of 7.5 to 10 inches of asphalt pavement over 12 inches of aggregate base over 6 inches of special subbase.

228 DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND CONSTRUCTION Structural Design Method – University of Pittsburgh, BCOA-ME Table 2. Design Inputs Design Parameters Input Value Highway Category Urban Highway Design life (years) 20 18 k ESAL 5,335,599 Joint Spacing (inch) 72 PCCP Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 4,000,000 PCCP Poisson's Ratio 0.15 PCC Flexural Strength (lb/in2) 650 Asphalt Thickness (inch) 7.5-10 Asphalt Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) 500,000 Asphalt Poisson's Ratio 0.35 Asphalt Fatigue Life Previously Consumed (%) 35 Subgrade Modulus (lb/in3) 200 Temperature Gradient (°F/inch) 3 Converted Concrete Thickness (inch) 7.38 ESAL Conversion Factor 0.9954 Neutral Axis 4.77 Le 39.07 L/le 1.84 Overlay Thickness (inch) 6.0 Milling Thickness (inch) 4.0 Table 3. Traffic Details Detail Response Present Day ADT (2009) 9,983 Trucks % 6.99 20-Year Factor 1.22 Number of Lanes 5 Paving Materials Table 4. Mix Design Details Mix Designation Nominal Max. Agg. Size Cement + SCM (lb/yd3) SCM Type (% Replace) w/cm Ratio Unit weight (lb/ft3) Air Content (%) 10-204 (Handwork) 0.75 inch 611 Fly Ash (15%) 0.42 141.6 6.0 10-603 (Slipform) 0.75 inch 752 Fly Ash (10%) 0.36 142.0 6.0 Mix Designation Cement Source SCM Source Aggregate Source Admixtures 1 10-204 (Handwork) Cemex Louisiana (I-LA) Separation Technologies (Class F Ash) Hanson, BMC, Springfield Pike (coarse, dolomitic limestone) Hanson, PMA Ohio River (fine) Euclid-Euco 92 (AEA): 0.58 fl. oz. per CWT Euclid-Plastol 341 (WR): 8.0 fl. oz. per CWT 10-603 (Slipform) Cemex Louisiana (I-LA) Separation Technologies (Class F Ash) Hanson, BMC, Springfield Pike (coarse, dolomitic limestone) Hanson, PMA Ohio River (fine) Euclid-Euco 92 (AEA): 1.19 fl. oz. per CWT Euclid-Plastol 341 (WR): 6.0 fl. oz. per CWT Euclid-Accelguard 80 (ACC): 25.0 fl. oz. per CWT 1 AEA = Air-Entraining Admixture, CWT = concrete weight, WR = Water-Reducer.

229 Table 5. Single Sample Test Results Test 10-204 Handwork 10-603 Slipform Slump (inch) 3 2 Air Content (%) 6.5 6.0 Unit Weight (lb/yd3) 143.24 143.84 Microwave W/CM (%) 0.442 0.382 28-Day Compressive Strength (lb/in2) 4,140 5,110 28-Day Modulus of Elasticity (lb/in2) 4,150,000 4,350,000 28-Day Shrinkage (% length change) -0.031 -0.041 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (microstrain/°C) 8.064 8,805 56-Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs/permeability class) 1,796/Low 2,103/Moderate 56-Day Permeable Voids (%) 8.9 8.5 Entrained Air Content (%) 6.0 4.6 Spacing Factor (inch) 0.004 0.007 Specific Surface (in-1) 1,213 893 PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE HISTORY Prior to BCOA Asphalt surface showed modest levels of rutting and fatigue cracking. MAINTENANCE HISTORY Concrete pavement patching. LESSONS LEARNED 1. Use of early-entry saws seemed to prevent random cracking in the BCOA. 2. Joints were sealed despite the fact this practice is not typically recommended on small slabs (<6’). 3. Proper curing is critical. Curing compound should be applied early and often. 4. Tie-bars were used in the BCOA, which presented problems during construction (mill wider than BCOA width). Tie-bars were not an absolute requirement in the design and could be eliminated to mitigate construction issues. 5. Placement of BCOA should be placed within a few days of milling asphalt pavement.

230 CURRENT CONDITION Automated Condition Survey (2018) Table 6. Automated Condition Survey Results Direction Statistic IRI (in/mi) Faulting (mils) Cracking Density (% of slabs) Corner Longitudinal Transverse Total NB Average 102 39 0 0.3 0 0.3 Stdev 28 21 0.1 0.8 0 0.8 SB Average 98 36 0 1.1 0 1.1 Stdev 24 15 0.1 2.7 0 2.7 Figure 2. Automated condition survey—northbound. Figure 3. Automated condition survey—southbound. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or Fa ul tin g (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 100 200 300 400 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Cr ac k De ns ity IR I ( in /m i) or F au lti ng (m ils ) Station (ft) IRI Faulting Corner Longitudinal Transverse

231 Manual Condition Survey (2019) Table 7. Manual Condition Survey Results Distress Type Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Corner Breaks (number) 0 0 0 Durability "D" Cracking (ft2) 0 0 0 Longitudinal Cracking (ft) 47 15 62 Transverse Cracking (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Seal Damage (ft) 178 180 200 Longitudinal Joint Seal Damage (ft) 1,058 1,551 1,068 Longitudinal Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 0 Transverse Joint Spalling (ft) 0 0 3 Map Cracking (ft2) 0 0 194 Scaling (ft2) 0 0 0 Polished Aggregate (ft2) 0 0 0 Blowups (number) 0 0 0 Asphalt Patch (ft2) 0 0 0 Concrete Patch (ft2) 0 209 0 Water Bleeding and Pumping (ft2) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (transverse cracks ≥ 2 ft) 0 0 0 Cracked Slabs (transverse cracks ≥ 1/2 slab width) 3 2 4 Total Slabs Surveyed 152 154 174 Figure 4. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—fair segment.

232 Figure 5. Typical condition at time of detailed site investigation—poor segment. FWD (2019) Table 8. FWD Results Segment LTE (%) k-value (lb/in3) Effective Thickness (inch) Elastic Modulus (lb/in2) Poisson’s Ratio Good 85 821 6.5 5,000,000 0.15 Fair 84 841 6.2 5,000,000 0.15 Poor 85 922 7.0 5,000,000 0.15

233 GPR (2018) Table 9. GPR Layer Thickness Segment Statistic Right Wheel Path Left Wheel Path Both Wheel Paths BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) BCOA (inch) Asphalt (inch) Good Average 7.0 6.5 6.1 5.2 6.6 5.9 Std. Deviation 0.1 1.3 0.4 1.4 0.5 1.5 Fair Average 6.5 7.5 6.0 4.1 6.3 6.2 Std. Deviation 0.5 1.2 0.1 0.9 0.5 2.0 Poor Average 6.9 4.7 7.2 2.7 7.1 3.7 Std. Deviation 0.4 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.4 All Average 6.8 6.0 6.5 3.8 6.6 5.0 Std. Deviation 0.4 1.8 0.6 1.4 0.6 2.0 Note: discontinuities indicate GPR was unable to detect layer. Figure 6. GPR layer thickness⎯left wheel path. 0 3 6 9 12 1.30 1.27 1.25 1.22 0.99 0.96 0.94 0.91 0.58 0.56 0.53 0.50 La ye r T hi ck ne ss (i nc h) Station (mile) Concrete Asphalt Concrete Core Asphalt Core Poor Good Fair

234 MIRA (2019) Figure 7. MIRA results. Table 10. MIRA Results—Average BCOA Thickness Statistic Good Segment Fair Segment Poor Segment Average (inch) No testing No testing 6.8 inch Stdev (inch) N/A N/A 0.5 Faultmeter (2019) Faultmeter results are not available due to equipment failure. 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10 15 20 BC O A Th ic kn es s (in ch ) MIRA Test No. Poor

235 Coring and DCP (2019) Core C-3 (good) Core C-5 (poor) Core C-6 (poor) Core C-7 (poor) Table 11 Core Thickness Layer Description Layer Thickness (inch) Good Segment Poor Segment Core No. Avg Std Core No. Avg Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BCOA 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 0 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 0 Asphalt 9.1 (a) (a) (a) N/A N/A 8.3 (a) (a) (a) N/A N/A Base Aggregate, thickness unknown PATB(b), thickness unknown Subgrade Unknown, unable to clear aggregate base from core hole. (a) Core not obtained due to time restriction. (b) Permeable asphalt treated base. DCP testing not conducted, unable to clear aggregate base (estimated to be > 2 ft thick) from core hole.

236 LABORATORY TESTING Table 12. Compressive Strength Core Split Tensile (lb/in2) Measured Compressive (lb/in2) Corrected Compressive (lb/in2) )(a) C1 682 N/A 11,400 C2 N/A 9,935 7,643 C4 812 N/A 14,504 C8 N/A 8,253 6,338 (a) Predicted compressive strength for cores tested for split tensile strength. Table 13. Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Core CTE (× 𝟏𝟎 𝟔𝑭) C4 6.054 C6 6.129 Figure 8. Hamburg Wheel Testing Results (C5) Table 14. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Core Max Force (lb) Shear Strength (lb/in2) Failure mode C5 3,485 127 Cohesive C8 2,181 80 Bond and cohesive 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M ax im um D ef le ct io n (m m ) Pass #

237 Figure 9. Composite Concrete-Asphalt Shear Test Results Table 15. Soil Classification Sieve No Sieve Size (inch) % Passing Subgrade Good 37.5 1.50 100 25.4 1.00 99 19.0 0.75 80 12.5 0.50 48 9.5 0.375 32 No.4 0.187 12 No.8 0.094 7 No. 10 0.079 7 No.16 0.047 6 No.30 0.023 6 No. 40 0.017 6 No.50 0.012 5 No.100 0.006 3 No.200 0.003 1 Pan 0 0 LL 43% PL 30% PI 13% AASHTO Soil Classification A-2-7